


'*vl 



•^^^'Sfe 





I 

A m-CATHOLIC 



JOHN HUNKEY 













Book ■ H ^ 1 

GofpghtN? 



COPyRlGHT DEPOSIT 



How I Became 

A=^= 

Non-Catholic 



THAT being the making of the 
discovery that the Catholic 
Doctrines of the Real Presence 
of Christ in the Eucharist, and the 
Invocation of the Blessed Virgin, 
are Erroneous and Unscriptural. 




By 

JOHN HUNKEY 



Cincinnati, Ohio 

The Standard Publishing Company 

1911 



4' 



Copyright, 1911, 

The Standard Publishing Go. 

All rights reserved. 



^V*^ 



©ci.a:^s'.*;)70 



^ 



PREFACE 



As a sort of a defense as to how I became a non- 
Catholic and left the Catholic Church, and by reading 
v^arious works of Catholics, and converts to Catholicity, 
such as "Why T Am a Caitholic," "How I Became a 
Catholic," etc., I was inspired to write a work giving 
some of the reasons how I became a non-Catholic. For 
I was "born and bred" a Catholic and was a practical 
one up to the thirty-sixth year of my age, so that some 
Catholics, including some of my relatives, have expressed 
great surprise that I, an "ignorant and illiterate person," 
should leave the Church — a short form I will use for 
the words "Catholic Church" — when intellectual giants, 
highly educated, wealthy, cultured and refined people are 
Catholics, or Protestants and others, after a lifetime of 
Protestantism and investigation, oftentimes near the end 
of their lives, become converts to Catholicity. They have 
even gone so far as to say that I had lost my mind, 
had become crazy, was in the power of the devil, was 
stubborn, proud, etc. 

In view of that, then, I believe some sort of a defense 
or explanation should be made of my course or action 
for becoming a non-Catholic and leaving the Church. 

Although there are a number of doctrinal reasons 
for how I became a non-Catholic, I will give but two 



iT PREFACE. 

of them; for to give them all would make too large a 
volume. I will, as it is, even have to leave out matter 
pertaining to the two doctrines to be examined, otherwise 
ft would make too large a volume. The two doctrines 
are the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and 
the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin, virtually the two 
leading or essential doctrines of the Church. And when 
one arrives at the point where those two doctrines appear 
to one as errors, not pronouncing them anything stronger 
here, it is sufficient, or ought to be, to cause one to leave 
the church that teaches these doctrines. And that is 
what I did when I thought I could expediently do so. 
For had I not then left the Church I would have become 
a hypocrite had I outwardly continued to profess belief 
in doctrines when I could no longer give to them "an 
internal assent of the intellect," as one is obliged to 
give to the teachings of the Church, as may be seen 
by this : 

From these passages (Matt. x. 14; xviii. 17; Mark xvi, 16), 
we see, on the one hand, that the Apostles and their successors 
have received full powers to announce the Gospel; and on the 
other, that their hearers are obliged to listen with docility, and 
to obey not merely by an external compliance, but also by an 
internal assent of the intellect (The Faith of Our Fathers, 48th 
Edition, James Cardinal Gibbons, pp. 89, 90). 

The Church says the following of the Eucharist or 
the Communion bread and wine: 

The holy Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearances of bread and 
wine, or of either of them (A Catechism of the Catholic Re- 
ligion, approved by Louis Mary, O. S. B., p. 74). 

It is the central dogma of our religion and the very focus 
of Divine love (Thoughts for All Times, Right Rev. Mgr. John 
S. Vaughan, p. 119). 

The most important doctrine in the whole of Catholic the- 



PREFACE. ▼ 

ology . . . The keystone of Catholic worship . . . The 
center of religious faith (The Sacramental Life of the Church, 
Rev. Bernard J. Otten, S. J., pp. 79, 101. 

A Eucharistic mission (among Protestants) is a revelation 
to such as these, because it shows them how all the dogmas of 
our holy faith come to a focus in the Real Presence (The 
Winchester Conference. Papers by the Missionaries to Non- 
Catholics on the Work of Making Convents, October, 1901, 
p. 58). 

The Catholic ritual which, be it observed, never ceases, for 
its center is the Real Presence. In this everlasting Sacrament, 
the unknown God, if we believe, is not far from every one of 
us (The Prospects of Catholicism, Rev. William Barry, D. D., 
p. 23). 

In a word, this Sacrament is, as it were, the very soul of 
the Church (God with Us: Letter from Pope Leo XIII on 
the Most Holy Eucharist, p. 23). 

Here is what the Church says about the Blessed 
Virgin : 

The cultus, or worship, of the Virgin Mary forms an essen- 
tial part of the Catholic system (A Short Cut to the True 
Church, Rev. Edmund Hill, p. 119). 

The Church exhorts her children not only to honor the 
Blessed Virgin, but also to invoke her intercession (The Faith 
of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, p. 221). 

It may be seen, then, by what the Church teaches 
about the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin, that the 
doctrines of the Real Presence and the Invocation of 
the Blessed Virgin are virtually her two leading or 
essential doctrines. 

Where, then, a church's two leading doctrines are 
erroneous, have no bases of truth, that is the church or 
religion one ought to and should leave when one makes 
the discovery that they are erroneous, otherwise one 
would become and be a real hypocrite. 

This work is not to be criticised from a literary or a 



PREFACE. 



grammatical standpoint; for I am not a graduate of any 
institution of higher learning. 

John Hunkey. 

Atchison, Kansas, in the year 1910. 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER PAGE 

I. How long Christ remains present with communi- 
cant — Transubstantiation changes bread and wine 
into pre-existing body of Christ — Christ not speak 
in the literal- sense — Jews misled by repetition of 
Christ's words in John 6th i 

II. Word "is" stands for signifies — Christ received un- 
der each species — Multiplicity of Christ-Gods — God 
goes into the stomach of communicant — His blood 
flows in our veins — Withdraws His presence when 
species fail to digest i8 

III. Priests should heal the sick — Catholic communion 
is cannibalism — Christ forgave sins as man — The 
Scriptural way of having the abiding presence of 
Christ — God laid upon your tongue — How be guilty 
of body and blood of the Lord — Communion of 
infants 43 

IV. The difference between to enter the kingdom of 
God, and have life in you — The church changeable — 
No warrant of Scripture for frequent communion — 
Christ speaks of baptism to Samaritan woman — 
Soul reached and fed through the mind 86 

V. Spirit received by the hearing of faith — John 6th 
not teach Real Presence — Christ came to abolish 
idolatry — His to be a spiritual kingdom — Not speak 
figuratively at Last Supper — Fathers who ate manna 
in the desert, in hell or else annihilated 114 



vui CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER PAQg 

VI. Chalice of benediction, blood of Christ — ^Apostles not 
believe in Real Presence — Host of pagan derivation 
— Efficacy of communion — Catholic sacraments not 
supernatural — Popes usually Italians — Catholics fear 
criticism of conduct by Protestants 151 

VII. Laws of yearly communion and attendance at mass 
on Sundays — The confessor the judge how often 
may go to communion — Penances imposed as Christ 
would impose if still on earth — Difference between 
accidents and substance — Mass only a make-believe. 195 

VIII. What it means to put on Christ — Infallibility of the 
Pope — Catholics not pay to have sins pardoned — 
If the church erred, then Christ has lied — Pope has 
host placed in tomb wjth him — Church, with wis- 
dom of ages, knows more than you — Truth not pre- 
rogative only of institution with wisdom of the 
ages 227 

IX. Invocation of the Blessed Virgin — B. V. is only a 
creature — Cannot hear over 46,000 petitions simul- 
taneously — Behold thy son, limited to St. John — 
Drink ye all of it, limited to clerics — Christ not say, 
Woman, behold thy daughters 263 

Conclusion 300 

Appendix 308 

Index 318 



How I Became a Non-Catholic 



CHAPTER I. 

The way I was led to the discovery of the error of 
the doctrine of the Real Presence — which is a short 
form I will use for the words "Real Presence of Christ 
in the Eucharist, or Communion bread and wine" — was 
as follows: About twelve years ago, in the thirty-sixth 
year of my age, I became physically afflicted in such a 
way that I could not do anything else much since that 
time than read for pastime. In my much reading I re- 
read the Catechism, which I had been taught in my 
youth when my mind was not mature enough to do much, 
if any, thinking for myself on religious doctrines; and 
read other Catholic works, some of which were given 
me by priests while I yet lay bedfast. In reading again 
the Catechism and other Catholic literature I came across 
the following: 

Q. How long does Jesus Christ remain under the species? 

A. As long as the species exist (Doctrinal Catechism, Rev. 
Stephen Keenan, p. 230). 

Q. How long does Christ remain present with His Sacred 
Flesh and Blood? 

A. As long as the appearances of bread and wine continue 
to exist (Deharbe's Catechism No. 1, p. 260). 

Christ remains present under the appearances of bread and 
wine no longer than the material appearances remain; once 

1 



2 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 

they cease because of digestion, or from any other cause, the 
presence of Christ ceases also (Question-Box Answers, Rev. 
Bertrand L. Conway, p. 447) . 

After ' receiving the Most Holy Sacrament our Divine Lord 
dwells in us and remains until the natural heat destroys the 
appearances (Magazine, Perpetual Adoration, 1905, p. 7). 

Yet one ought to pray as follows after receiving 
Communion : 

May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have received, and Thy 
Blood, which I have drunk, remain with me (The Mass Book, 
Rev. A. P. Doyle, p. 27). 

But it seems Christ pays more attention to the com- 
municant's "digestion" and the "natural heat" of his 
stomach than to his prayer, if Christ takes His departure 
as soon as the "species" have "ceased because of 
digestion" or^ been destroyed by "the natural heat" of 
the stomach of the communicant. There is, then, a 
difficulty here, is there not? The Church says further: 

Beg Him to abide with you all day . . . Remember that 
away from Communion, there are but alternations of courage 
and weakness; but real strength, indomitable strength, is the 
portion of those in whom Jesus Christ always abides (Frequent 
and Daily Communion, Father Julius Lintelo, S. J., pp. 48, 56). 

But how can Christ abide with or in the communicant 
"all day" or "always," if He takes His departure as soon 
as the "species" have "ceased because of digestion," which 
the Church says is about "ten or fifteen minutes" after 
receiving Communion? 

Oh! how precious are the moments immediately after the 
reception of holy Communion. For ten or fifteen minutes at 
least, as long as the appearances of bread remain unchanged 
\vithin us after holy Communion, we should be absorbed in fer- 
vent devotion (A Pious Preparation for First Holy Communion, 
Rev. F. X. Lasance, p. 339). 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 3 

Now, if Christ's presence ceases ''ten or fifteen 
minutes" after the reception of Communion, "because of 
digestion" or destruction by "natural heat" of the 
"species," then how can Christ abide with or within one 
"all day" or "always," if it is only by Communion that 
one can obtain or have His presence with one? Think 
of that question again. Is it not a difficulty and a contra- 
diction ? 

After reading that the presence of Christ ceases as 
soon as the "species" have ceased "because of digestion," 
etc., and pressing the inquiry a step further than the 
Church went, or "digging a little deeper," as Rev. Patrick 
Denehy says (Who Can Forgive Sins, p. 3), logically 
the following question suggested itself: 

What, then, becomes of Christ after the "appearances of 
bread and wine no longer continue to exist" after the reception 
of Communion, when the "natural heat" has caused the "spe- 
cies" to "cease because of digestion"? 

For surely a new and "whole and entire" Christ or 
God is made at the consecration at Mass, according 
to the following: 

After the consecration, which the Priest makes by saying 
over the bread and wine the same words which Jesus Christ 
said at the Last Supper, there is no longer any bread and wine 
on the altar, but the true and living Jesus Christ (The Mass 
Book, Rev. A. P. Doyle, p. 7). 

By a word the omnipotence of God changes bread and wine 
into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The substance of 
bread and wine is annihilated, but notwithstanding this, the 
appearances remain in their original state and retain their taste, 
color and form (Magazine, Perpetual Adoration, 1908, p. 2). 

See the power of the Priest; out of a piece of bread the 
word of a priest makes a God. It is more than creating the 
world (Magazine, Tabernacle and Purgatory, May, 1905, p. 13). 

(See the power of the Priest; by the word of a priest the 



4 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

sick are made well. It is more than creating the world out 
of nothing (?) The first claim has as much truth to it as 
the last.) 

The Council of Trent says (Sess. xiii, ch. iv) : "That by 
the consecration of bread and wine a change is wrought of the 
bread's whole substance into the substance of Christ our Lord's 
Body, and of the wine's whole substance into the substance of 
His Blood, which change has been by the Holy Catholic Church 
suitably and properly called Transubstantiation." 
Transubstantiation, therefore, means that when Jesus Christ, 
at the Last Supper, pronounced the words, "This is My Body; 
this is My Blood," the Son of God, by His omnipotent power 
transubstantiated, or changed, the substance of the bread and 
wine into His living flesh; so that no bread or wine whatsoever 
remained, but Himself — Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, under 
their appearances. So in like manner, every day at Mass, the 
priest, acting in the name of Christ, pronounces the same words, 
and God effects the same change. . . . Transubstantiation 
has an analogy in nature, imperfect though it may be. For is 
not the human body, which changes entirely every few years, 
made up of the food we have assimilated? Does not at least 
a part of this food become body and blood? Why believe in 
this gradual, mysterious change that God works in us con- 
stantly, and deny Him the power of instantly qhanging food 
into His Body and Blood? (The Question-Box Answers, Rev. 
B. L. Conway, pp. 416, 417, 436). 

A better analogy, I believe, is an egg, whose entire 
changeable substance can be changed into a living 
chicken. 

According to the foregoing quotations a new Qirist- 
God, with a separate ego, mind, will and consciousness, 
must be made at every consecration at Mass, who begins 
existence where the substances of bread and wine cease 
to exist, are changed into Christ-God, just as a new 
chicken, a new ego, if such a term may be applied to it, 
begins existence where the substance of an egg is changed 
into a chicken. Transubstantiation does not mean an 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 5 

infusion of Christ-God into substances that afterwards 
still remain, as the wire remains after electricity has been 
infused into it, or without displacing the substance of 
the wire, but is a complete changing of one substance 
into another, like the changing or transmuting the sub- 
stance of an egg into a living chicken. And, of course, 
where one substance is thus changed into another, the 
substance that succeeds it must then necessarily have its 
beginning, just like a chicken has its beginning where 
the substance of an egg is changed into it, there being 
just as complete a change of substance and a beginning 
of existence in the one case as in the other. That is 
what real transubstantiation means. A God, then, who 
is made "out of a piece of bread" is not the uncreated, 
infinite and eternal God from eternity who is. It is, then, 
only a "God" to those who want to believe so, just as 
the man-made god of wood or stone of the pagans is 
"a god" to those pagans who want to believe so. Then 
think of worshiping such "a God!" What, then, is the 
real difference between Catholic idolatry and pagan 
idolatry, so far as their deities in material forms and 
their adoration are concerned? Answer for yourself. 

When one substance is changed into another, and it 
does not start the beginning of a new being, as when 
food is changed into natural flesh and blood of a being 
already in existence, then it adds to the size or quantity 
of the being into which it is changed, or they replace 
wasted tissues. But that thought can not be held of 
God. For He is infinite and can not, therefore, be added 
to nor waste away; for infinitude admits of no increase 
or addition or wasting tissues. To say, as one wrote me*, 
that "the Christ is in all consecrated Hosts, mysteriously 
diffused," and when the "material appearances have 
ceased because of digestion" that then "Christ Himself 



6 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

is undiminished," would not be transubstantiation, but 
consubstantiation, in which the Church does not believe. 
Neither would Christ then have been "consumed," as 
Catholics are led to believe is the case when they "eat 
the flesh of the Son of Man" in Communion. And 
according to the following there is after all no real 
transubstantiation, but the Eucharist is a sort of a 
magnet that draws the Lord from heaven: 

In Transubstantiation the substance is changed, not so as to 
form what till then had no existence, but into that which al ready- 
exists. That is to say, before the consecrating words are 
spoken our Lord's sacred Body exists in Heaven, perfect, entire 
and wanting in nothing, and by virtue of the words of conse- 
cration the bread resting on the altar is changed, not into a new 
Body, but into that very pre-existing Body. [Must, then, add 
to its size or quantity]. The Body into which the substance of 
bread is changed in the Mass is a glorified Body — a true body 
indeed, possessing all its constituent parts and organs, but spir- 
itualized, incorruptible, immortal and glorious. This doctrine 
refers only to Masses offered up since the time of our Lord's 
Resurrection (Thoughts for All Times, Right Rev. Mgr. John 
S. Vaughan, p. 145). 

According to that there is really no transubstantiation 
at the consecration, but a sort of a case of "now you 
do, and now you do not" change bread and wine into 
such flesh and blood of Christ as the Jews apparently 
believed they were to eat and drink, and into such flesh 
and blood as Christ had at the time He said to them : 

Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His 
blood, you shall not have life in you (John 6:54). 

And how can bread and wine be changed into "that 
very pre-existing Body" that is "entire and wanting in 
nothing," without adding to its quantity, just like bread 
and wine changed into human flesh and blood, or body, 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 7 

can not help but add to the quantity of the body, or 
replace its wasting tissues? And will glorified bodies 
have flesh and blood such as the Jews apparently believed 
they were with the mouth to literally eat and drink? 
If so, then how does that dovetail with this? 

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot pos- 
sess the kingdom of God (I. Cor. 15:50). 

And if it was not literal, carnal flesh and blood, but 
glorified flesh and blood — which is no such flesh and 
blood at all as understood by the Jews, and which they 
were to literally eat and drink — then how was the declara- 
tion of Christ (John 6:54, 55), if it meant a mouth- 
eating and drinking act, anything but misleading to 
them, especially if the following is true? 

That He is not speaking figuratively, but in the literal sense, 
about our eating His flesh and drinking His blood is proved by 
His frequent repetition of "unless a man eat My flesh and 
drink My blood he shall not have life in him." And when the 
Jews objected to this doctrine as repugnant, far from telling 
them it was figurative language, He repeated His statement and 
allowed them to depart (The Gospel Plea for Christian Unity, 
Rev. Martin O'Donoghue, p. 42). 

Did not the repetition of "unless a man eat My flesh 
and drink My blood," make the flesh and blood as literal 
and carnal as the repetition of "Except a man be born 
again" (John 3:3-5), make the water mean literal, 
carnal water? Or did it also mean a "glorified" water, 
under the veil of something as foreign in appearance to 
literal water as bread is to the supposed literal flesh and 
blood of Christ? 

Probably if Christ had, if He meant a mouth-eating 
and drinking operation, explained, as the Church has, 
and told the Jews He did not mean literal, carnal flesh 



8 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

and "clotted gore** such as they bought "in the shambles 
of the meat market" (The Real Presence, Rev. C. F, 
Smarius, S. J., p. 9), as they imagined Christ would 
give them, but that He would give them a "glorified 
Body" under the veils of bread and wine, which would 
be as easy to eat and drink as plain, natural bread and 
wine, they probably would not have thought it to be an 
operation or "doctrine as repugnant" and would then not 
have said: "How can this man give us His flesh to 
eat?" (John 6:53). Either, then, Christ misled the 
Jews, if He meant a mouth-eating and drinking act at 
all, but which He did not, as we will see later, or else 
the Church is in error for claiming now that the flesh 
and blood of Christ are to be understood as "glorified" 
flesh and blood ; for at the time He addressed the Jews 
it was before "the time of our Lord's resurrection." 

That the Jews, however, understood they were to eat 
and drink flesh and blood that were flesh and blood 
"indeed" (John 6:56), in their literal or carnal state, 
may be inferred from the following: 

If we take the expression, to eat the flesh of Christ, in the 
only figurative sense known at that time, and say that was His 
meaning, His words, reduced to literal language, would stand 
about thus: "Except ye do some grievous injury to the Son of 
Man, ye have no life in you." This interpretation must at once 
be rejected; and this being true, we are forced to take its 
expression in its literal sense, or in some new and unknown 
and undefined figurative sense. And what right have we to do 
the latter? . . . And to show that these expressions (John 
vi. 54, 55) were revolting to the Jews, I need only refer to the 
following texts: Levit. iii. 17; vii. 26; Gen. ix. 4; Deut. xii. 16; 
XV. 23; Levit. xvii. 10; I. Kings xiv.; Eze. xxxiii. 25; Judith xi. 
10-12; Wisdom xi. 7; Isa. xlix. 26; Jer. xix. 8; Acts xv. 29. It 
was doubtless this revolting idea which the Jews had of eating 
human flesh and drinking blood, that induced many of the 
disciples to "walk no more" with our Lord, and disbelieve the 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 9* 

doctrine He taught (The Path which Led a Protestant Lawyer 
to the Catholic Church, Peter H. Burnett; Rev. Jas. Sullivan, 
S. J., Ed., pp. 286-288). 

The Church, however, does not strictly "take its 
expression in its literal sense," but the sense in which 
she takes it would make Christ's "language stand about 
thus:" 

Except ye eat the glorified Body in Heaven of the Son of 
Man, ye have no life in you. 

Now, if the declarations of Christ were not to be 
taken in the plain, literal, obvious sense, as pagans liter- 
ally ate and drank the flesh and blood they "sacrificed to 
idols" and "from things strangled" (Acts 15:29, etc.), 
then were the Jews not misled by those declarations if 
those declarations meant that His flesh and blood would 
be of the "glorified" kind and were to be received under 
the veils of bread and wine? Even as the Church has 
interpreted it, it is not in "its literal, plain, obvious sense," 
"which was supposed to be the only other sense than the 
figurative sense, which "must at once be rejected." If 
the Jews, then, were not misled then there must be a 
real transubstantiation of bread and wine into carnal^ 
literal flesh and blood of Christ, such as was His flesh 
and blood at the time He spoke to them, at least they 
must appear so to the eyes of faith. Transubstantiation,, 
then, means the coming into existence of a substance 
that has a beginning where the substances of bread and 
wine end, and means a new substance or being, just as a 
chicken hatched from an egg is a new substance or 
being, and at the consecration at Mass it must then mean 
a new and "whole and entire" Christ-God. Or if no 
new Christ-God is made then at least new flesh and 
blood of His are made, and new flesh and blood imply a 



10 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

new ''human nature Body" of Christ-God. And as the 
Church teaches, as we will see later, that the Body 
of Christ, His "human nature Body," is "incor- 
ruptible, immortal," that is, "imperishaible meat," 
then what becomes of it if its presence ceases in 
the communicant when the "species" have "ceased 
because of digestion" or been destroyed by his 
"natural heat," and it is not literally "consumed" to 
nothingness, as natural food is when it is consumed? 
And why should His presence be governed and limited 
by digestion or "natural heat?" That very fact alone 
shows the erroneousness and absurdity of the doctrine 
of the Real Presence. But if the doctrine is true then 
a new "whole and entire" Christ-God or new flesh and 
blood of His must necessarily be made at the consecra- 
tion at Mass. Such being the case, then what becomes of 
Him when the appearances under which He is supposed 
to be veiled have "ceased because of digestion" or been 
destroyed by "natural heat?" Some may say that that 
is not so important a question as to cause one to quibble 
over or to doubt the doctrine of the Real Presence. But 
it is really a more important question than first appears 
on the face of it. For by "digging a little deeper" the 
question becomes of great importance ; for it can not be 
answered without involving many contradictions and 
difficulties. I did at one time think the question could 
be answered in two ways. But when I put them to the 
test they could not stand the test of an analysis with the 
"arms of the intellect," the weapons the Church says 
she will one day use in her "warfare with Infidelity." 

Even to the casual observer it becomes more evident from 
day to day that the time of a great warfare is fast approaching, 
The battle will be fought and won, not with material arms, but 
with the arms of the intellect. Two great armies, and only 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 11 

two, will be engaged in the combat — the Catholic Church and 
Infidelity (St. Benedict's Church Calendar, March 3, 1902, p. 5). 

And surely the Church can not, in analyzing her 
teachings, rightly deny any one the use of the same 
weapons, the "arms of the intellect," with which she 
would attack the teachings of Infidelity, or any other 
system opposed to her teachings. And surely we have 
a right to follow up the act of receiving Christ-God in 
Communion and know what becomes of Him, just as 
we have the right to follow up, if we want to, the act 
of eating food and knowing what becomes of it, etc. 
There are two answers, and they are as follows : 

1. That Christ-God then leaves one again, "whole and 
entire." 

2. That Christ-God then is assimilated to nothingness, just 
as food that is properly taken into the stomach and is digested, 
is assimilated to nothingness; that is, it is food no longer 
because of its having become digested. 

On analyzing those answers I found, however, that 
neither one of them could be admitted. For in the first 
case, the soul of the communicant would not have 
retamed any part or substance of Christ-God (otherwise 
He would then be less than a "whole and entire" Christ- 
God after He left the communicant), and the soul would 
therefore not have received or retained anything sub- 
stantial and lasting that would give it any lasting nourish- 
ment and strength; it being the same as though one 
should reject or vomit out again "whole and entire" a 
meal that one had just eaten, a process which would 
certainly not nourish and strengthen the body. 

Again, if Christ-God leaves one again "whole and 
entire," or He is not consumed and assimilated to 
nothingness, annihilation, as natural food is when eaten, 
then how has one eaten and drunk the flesh and blood of 



12 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Christ-God and "consumed" them, or how is one's soul 
nourished by them if they are not literally consumed and 
assimilated and they leave one again "whole and entire'^ 
in about fifteen minutes? Would you call that eating 
and drinking a thing if it left again in fifteen minutes 
"whole and entire," unconsumed and unassimilated, as 
chewing gum is, which one does not eat but only chews ? 
We do not say a person eats chewing gum or tobacco 
when he chews it only and does not swallow it. It 
would seem, then, that to really eat and drink the flesh 
and blood of God, they would have to be literally "con- 
sumed" and assimilated, just as natural foods are when 
one eats and drinks and consumes them, and as no doubt 
understood by the Jews. How, then, has one eaten and 
drunk the flesh and blood of Christ-God when they are 
taken into the mouth and they are not literally consumed 
and assimilated to nothingness? That is another diffi- 
culty, is it not? For to receive Christ-God into the 
mouth and not to assimilate Him, would not be eating 
Him literally. 

Then again, if He is not consumed and assimilated 
to nothingness, and He leaves "whole and entire" when 
the Eucharist has "ceased because of digestion" or been 
destroyed by "natural heat," it makes it apparent that 
space would be filled with the disembodied egos of the 
new Christ-Gods that were made at the consecrations at 
Masses. For according to the doctrine of transubstantia- 
tion material substances have been transmuted into a 
new Christ-God, with a separate ego, mind, will and 
consciousness, at each consecration in the Mass, who 
begins existence at the point where the substances of 
bread and wine cease to be any longer bread and wine 
substances That also can not be admitted if there is to 
be but one "whole and entire" Christ-God. The first 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 13 

answer, then, to the question of what becomes of Him 
after the "species" have "ceased because of digestion/' 
can not be admitted, can it ? Hardly. 

Now, as to the second answer, that then He is 
assimilated to nothingness, as natural food is that is 
properly eaten and digested. That answer also can not 
be admitted, for if we did then we would have to admit 
that the soul of the communicant is more substantial and 
powerful than Christ-God, if it can assimilate His Body 
to nothingness, a proposition no rational mind will or 
can admit. And if the soul of the communicant does 
not assimilate him to nothingness — ^that is. His flesh and 
blood, which must be the same as a "whole and entire" 
living Christ-God, otherwise they would be as dead flesh 
and blood — ^theh why more than one reception of Him in 
the Eucharist? Can not the finite be filled and remain 
filled by the reception of one Infinite? Think of that 
question again. 

The Church says: 

The soul, like the body, needs frequent nourishment; and 
the Holy Eucharist provides that food which is best adapted to 
the support of its life (Letter from Pope Leo XHI on the 
Most Holy Eucharist, p. 30). 

The Church thus invites you: Let not the faithful neglect 
to nourish and sustain their souls daily with this spiritual food. 
They do not fail each day to feed their bodies. It is clear that 
the soul needs spiritual fcrod no less than the body needs ma- 
terial food (Frequent and Daily Communion, Father Lintelo, 
S. J., p. 25). 

Now, why does the body need daily or "frequent 
nourishment ?" It is because natural food is a temporary 
substance and is assimilated, consumed to nothing- 
ness. Must it not be the same, then-, with the Body of 
Christ-God in the Eucharist, the "spiritual food" of the 



14 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

soul, if it must be eaten daily or often for the "frequent 
nourishment" of the soul? Yes. He must, then, be 
literally consumed and assimilated to nothingness, must 
He not, if He must be received daily or often for the 
frequent nourishment of the soul? Yes. But that can 
not be admitted, as we saw. 

Of course, the Church teaches that He is ever eaten 
in Communion, but without being "consumed" (Truth, 
Rev. Thomas F. Price, March, 1907, p. 341) ; that is, 
without being assimilated to nothingness. That would 
be about like ever chewing a piece of gum but without 
ever consuming it. But when one has such a piece of 
gum filling one's mouth to the full, then does one take 
more gum into one's mouth? No, decidedly not. And 
how, then, has one eaten and drunk the flesh and blood 
of the Son of Man, or how is his soul fed and nourished 
by them, if one has not literally "consumed" and assimi- 
lated them to nothingness, as one does the natural food 
and drink for the body that he eats and drinks with the 
mouth, assimilates and digests to nothingness? 

And if He is "ever eaten without being consumed," 
then why more than one reception of Him in the form of 
the Eucharist, and especially by clerics, as, for instance 
on Christmas, when every one says or is supposed to say 
three Masses, oftentimes one right after the other, in 
each of which they receive a supposed "whole and 
entire" living God? Or rather two, if the following is 
true; for clerics saying Mass partake of both bread and 
wine: 

Christ is whole and entire under the appearance of bread, 
whole and entire under the appearance of wine (Sacramental 
Life of the Church, Rev. Bernard J. Otten, S. J., p. 11^. 

Yes, why, then, so many receptions of Christ-God in 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 15 

Communion if He is not consumed? It must be because 
He is, too, consumed, must it not? Yes. But by what 
we have seen, that can not be admitted, can it ? No. 

As neither of the two answers in question, then, could 
be admitted, I wrote to a number of clerics, from priests 
up to higher Church dignitaries in this country, for an 
answer to the question : 

What becomes of Christ after the appearances of bread and 
wine received in Communion no longer continue to exist? 

Although I had enclosed self-addressed stamped 
envelopes for their answers not one answered, but one 
of them returned my letter with the following endorse- 
ment on the back of it : 

Pray, sir, which was the first, the chicken or the egg? 

As no cleric, then, would answer my question I wrote 
to a prominent Catholic professor and historian for an 
answer. This is what he wrote me: 

As to your blasphemous question about "What becomes of 
Christ," etc., any Christian knowing his catechism can answer 
you that, after a worthy Holy Communion Christ is and remains 
in your soul as long as you do not chase Him away by sin and 
enthrone Satan in His place. 

That answer, however, only presented another diffi- 
culty instead of satisfactorily answering my question, 
which I will leave to the reader to say whether or not 
it is any more a "blasphemous" one than is the Church's 
question of: 

How long does Christ remain present with His sacred Flesh 
and Blood? 

That difficulty is this: "If Christ is and remains in 
your soul as long as you do not chase Him away by sin 



16 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

and enthrone Satan in His place/' then every cleric would 
on Christmas, after having said the third Mass, have to 
contain within himself six, or at last, three, "whole and 
entire" living Gods, each with a separate ego, mind, will 
and consciousness, sandwiched, as it were, in his stomach ; 
for there is where the "species" really go. For surely, at 
the least, most of the clerics receive "worthy Holy Com- 
munions" when they communicate at each of the three 
Masses they celebrate in one day, sometimes one right 
after the other, and who hardly "chase Christ away by 
sin and enthrone Satan in His place" between those 
Masses and Communions. 

Well, that seemed to be another absurdity. For if 
He is not consumed and remains till He is "chased away 
by sin," then why the need of receiving another Christ- 
God, or two more, or rather, six within a few hours? 
Is one present Christ-God not sufficient when He is 
omnipotent? Yes. He is then not present in the 
Eucharist, is He? No. 

The layman's belief also does not agree with what 
the Church teaches. But then many non-agreements 
exist between what their Church really teaches and what 
laymen believe. 

The Church would have us believe (Doctrinal Cate- 
chism, Rev. Keenan, p. 112), that when a cleric com- 
municates under both forms of bread and wine, he 
receives no more than he who receives the form of bread 
alone. But if, as we saw, Christ is "whole and entire" 
in each species, with a separate ego, mind and conscious- 
ness in each species, then would not a cleric receive two 
separate and distinct conscious living Christs, when com- 
municating under both forms of bread and wine and 
He is present "whole and entire" under each form, just 
like a person would be eating two oysters who took two 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 17 

oysters exactly alike into his mouth ? Or do two separate 
and distinct Christ-Gods' egos, minds and conscious- 
nesses merge or immerse into one ego, mind and con- 
sciousness when they come into contact with each 
other ? Do the separate egos, minds, wills and conscious- 
nesses of a single man and woman merge into one 
ego, mind, will and consciousness when they get 
married and become "one flesh?" No. To receive, 
then, two separate species a cleric must receive 
two "whole and entire" Christs, must he not? Yes. 
But it may still be said that to communicate under 
both forms one receives no more than he who 
communicates only under one form, just as one who 
has two or more copies of the same book has only 
one and the same truth "whole and entire," and no more, 
than he who has but one copy of the book. But if one 
seeks and assimilates the one truth then would he at the 
very same time read or devour two or more books exactly 
alike? No. And has each copy of a book a separate 
conscious ego, mind and will like each "species," supposed 
to contain a "whole and entire" Christ-God, has ? No. 

In view, then, of what we have seen, clerics must then 
on Christmas, after having said the third Mass, contain 
within themselves six "whole and entire" Christ-Gods, 
each with a separate ego, mind, will and consciousness, 
unless they should "chase" a few of them "away by 
sin" between each of the three Masses. Is that not 
so? Yes. Oh, the blindness that can not see the error 
in the doctrine of the Real Presence! 



CHAPTER 11. 

As I, then, could not find an answer that could 
stand the test of an analysis with the "arms of the 
intellect," noble and God-given faculties, which God 
intended we should make use of and not "throw under 
the feet of faith" (Goffine, Rev. Leonard Goffine, p. 
409), and an answer that would appeal to the under- 
standing, as St. Paul said (2 Tim. 2 7 ; Col. i :g ; etc.) 
spiritual things pertaining to salvation should, I re- 
read the Bible, and that more closely than ever, to see 
if I could not find something that would show that 
the doctrine of the Real Presence is an error, resting 
on a possibly wrong interpretation of certain words. In 
doing so I discovered that the word "is" in "This 
is my body ; this is my blood," as Christ used that word, 
meant "represents" or "signifies." And here is where 
I made that discovery: Christ said, as He handed 
to His disciples the chalice containing wine, which 
He had blessed: 

Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testa- 
ment, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins 
(Matt. xxvi. 27, 28). 

Well, as the very wine the Apostles drank, and 
digested by the "natural heat" of their stomachs, and 
which was the wine of which Christ spoke when He 
said : "This is my blood," was certainly later not 
shed by Him, whose veins were already full of blood, 
as blood by Him on the cross, then He certainly did 
not mean that the very wine His disciples drank and 
18 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 19 

digested was His real living blood which he would 
later shed on the cross, but merely represented or 
"signified" it. The same interpretation of the word 
"is" applies to "This is my body" (Matt. 26:26). 
For the bread they ate was not later nailed to the cross, 
but they ate and digested it to nothingness. The 
word "is," then, as used under the circumstances in 
question, stands for or means represents or signifies, 
does it not? Yes. And that was the contention of 
Zwingli in his controversy with Luther over the doc- 
trine of the Real Presence, that the word "is," as used 
in "This is my body; this is my blood," stood for 
"signifies." For Zwingli said: 

There is no other word in the Greek language than son (is) 
to express "signifies" (History of The Reformation, lyAubigne, 
p. 346). 

But whether or not "there is no other word in 
the Greek language than 'is' to express 'signifies' " 
or represents, we saw that the way Christ used that 
word it could not mean anything other than "signifies" 
or represents. For the very wine that His disciples 
drank and digested certainly was not later shed as blood 
by (Christ on the cross. And it was the wine they latei 
drank and digested of which He had said : "This is my 
blood, . . . which shall be shed," or is shed. Note 
also, when He said, immediately after they drank the 
wine : 

And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this 
fruit of the vine, until I shall drink it with you in the kingdom 
of my Father (Matt. 26:29). 

how He completely shattered any such thought or be- 
lief as that the wine, "this fruit of the vine," of 
which they all drank with Him, was His real living 



20 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

blood. Note also how in John 13:27 Christ called 
what Judas ate, the "morsel." Of course, according to 
Luke 22 : 18 it appears, and as the Church contends 
(Doctrinal Catechism, Rev. Keenan, p. 218), Christ said 
that of the chalice that they were to "divide among" 
themselves. But it seems they had but one chalice, so 
that St. Matthew may have the correct version after 
all. He was also present at the Last Supper, while 
St. Luke was not, so that it must have been the chalice 
of which He said: "This is my blood," of which He 
later spoke as "this fruit of the vine." Besides, it 
would be absurd to think He drank His own blood, 
which would have been the case had the "fruit of the 
vine" been His real living blood, or Himself "whole 
and entire." 

The question of whether or not Christ had the 
power to change bread and wine into His body and 
blood does not enter into the matter at all. That is 
not the question under consideration. Omnipotent 
power is not questioned in this work. It is not a 
question of "how can God do so-and-so" when "I 
can't." 

Christ used the word "is" in the same way and 
sense that one would use it who had in his hand a 
group photograph of persons and would point out the 
different persons represented by saying, as he put his 
finger on each individual's picture: 

This is Mary Jones; this is Sally Rowe; this is John Smith, 
etc., 

although there is in the English language a word that 
clearly expresses represents or "signifies." In the 
same way Christ meant it when He said : "This is my 
body; this is my blood." For if otherwise, then how 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 21 

absurd it must have seemed to the Apostles at the 
Last Supper to have been forced to believe, which 
they would have had to were there a Real Presence 
of Christ in blessed Communion bread and wine, that 
Christ, "whole and entire/' sat in full view before 
them and that at the same time each had Him living 
and "whole and entire" within himself, under the 
appearances of the bread and wine of which they had 
just partaken; thus also making at the Last Supper 
thirteen "whole and entire" living Christ-Gods, or 
rather twenty-seven, if the following are true: 

Q. Did the Apostles receive Jesus Christ Himself whole 
and entire; first, under the appearance of bread; and, secondly* 
under the appearance of wine? 

A. Yes; they received Him whole and entire under each 
form (Catechism of the Christian Doctrine, a Jesuit Missionary, 
p. 69). 

It is generally held that our Lord on this occasion (the Last 
Supper) made thirteen divisions of the Holy Eucharist, and 
that He Himself communicated, and permitted the traitor Judas 
to communicate with the rest. The Fathers of the Eastern 
Church, as well as those of the Western, have always held this 
(A History of the Mass and its Ceremonies in the Eastern and 
Western Church, Rev. John O'Brien, A. M., pp. 328, 329). 

That, then, made' twenty-seven "whole and entire" 
Christs, each with a separate ego, mind, will and 
consciousness, at the Last Supper, one under the ap- 
pearance of flesh, whom the Apostles beheld with their 
natural eyes, and twenty-six under the appearances 
of bread and wine, which they beheld with the eyes 
of faith. Yet there is supposed to be but one God. 
What an anomaly ! Then again, think of Christ com- 
municating Himself with Himself, God eating God, 
as it were. Could anything be more erroneous and 
absurd than the doctrine of the Real Presence, when 



22 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

if it were true, and Christ communicated Himself with 
Himself, God would be eating Himself? And it would 
also be making a multiplicity of Gods, were there a 
Real Presence in each Eucharist. 

Here is an illustration by which the Church at- 
tempts to show that there is but one God notwith- 
standing there may at the very same time be one 
in each Eucharist, in the many churches and chapels 
in the world: 

A Jew was amusing himself in the public square, when there 
passed a priest who, accompanied by a crowd, carried the most 
holy Viaticum to a sick person. All the people, bending the 
knee, rendered due homage of adoration to the Most Holy Sac- 
rament; the Jew alone made no movement, nor gave any token 
of reverence. This being seen by a poor woman, she exclaimed, 
"O miserable man, why do you not show reverence to the true 
God, present in this divine sacrament?" "What true God?" 
said the Jew sharply. "H this were so, would not there be 
many Gods, since on each of your altars there is one during 
Mass?" The woman instantly took a sieve, and, holding it up 
to the sun, told the Jew to look at the rays which passed through 
the chinks; and then added, "Tell me, Jew, are there many suns 
which pass through the opening of this sieve, or only one?" 
And the Jew answering that there was but one sun, "Then," 
replied the woman, "why do you wonder that God incarnate, 
veiled in the sacrament, though one, indivisible and unchanged, 
should, through excess of love, place Himself in true and real 
presence on different altars?" Through this illustration, he was 
led on to confess the truth of the faith (The Hidden Treasure; 
or. The Value and Excellence of The Holy Mass, St. Leonard 
of Port Maurice, pp. 48, 49). 

According to that illustration, Eucharists would 
only be the reflections or emanations of God, and not 
God "whole and entire," just as the many rays of 
the sun which passed through the "chinks" of a sieve 
were only the reflections or emanations of the one 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 23 

sun, and were not each the sun "whole and entire/' 
or, as the words of a speaker radiating in all directions 
are but emanations from him, and are not the speaker 
^'whole and entire/' as the God in the Eucharist is 
supposed to be a God "whole and entire/' Is that not 
so? Yes. The illustration used, then, does not re- 
move the fact of the multiplicity of "whole and entire" 
Gods in the many Eucharists "on each of the altars" 
in Catholic churches, who is there "for the worship 
and the feeding of His people" (Messenger of the 
Sacred Heart, June, 1909, p. 347), were there a Real 
Presence of God in the Eucharist, were Transubstan- 
tiation true, and were each Eucharist a God of "con- 
crete reality," "objectively present" — Rev. B. Stew- 
art Chambers, D. D. (Catholic Register, May 29, 1909). 
The dogma of the Real Presence, then, cannot be true, 
can it, unless we admit that there are as many "whole 
and entire" Gods as there are Eucharists? No. For 
there is but one "whole and entire" God, who is in- 
finite, is from eternity, cannot be made or be com- 
pressed into a wafer, so that it can be said that "here 
is the God who created the universe," or, "here is 
more of God than there/' just as one cannot focalize 
the light of the sun and say: Here is more light of 
the sun than there in open space, or, here is the sun 
but not there, or, here is gravitation but not there. 

Another argument the Church uses in which to 
get around the difficulty of the multiplicity of Christ- 
Gods, were there a Real Presence in each Eucharist, 
is the following: 

Let us make a few remarks upon the second great miracle 
in connection with the Holy Eucharist, viz., the multiplication 
of the real presence. We must observe, at starting, that the 
word "multiplication" is to be applied, not to the Person of 



24 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Christ, but to the Presence of Christ. If two priests are cele- 
brating Mass at the same moment, one in London and the other 
in Sydney, what happens when they come to the words of con- 
secration? There is a Glorified Body in the London Church,, 
but is there another glorified Body in the Sydney Church? No! 
Not another. It is the same sacred Body in both places. . . . 
Hence it is not our Lord's Body that is multiplied, but merely 
the presence of that one Body in ten thousand times ten thou- 
sand places. And just as Christ foreshadowed the mystery of 
Transubstantiation, by changing water into wine [Did that very 
wine "pre-exist," and did the accidents of water still remain?],, 
so did He also foreshadow the multiplication of His sacra- 
mental presence by the multiplication of the loaves and fishes in 
the desert (Thoughts for All Times, Rev. Vaughan, pp. 145,^ 
146). 

It seems to be hard to distinguish the diflference 
between the multiplication of the Person of Christ 
and the multiplication of the Presence of Christ, if 
each Presence of Christ is a substantial entity with 
a separate ego, mind, will and consciousness, such as a 
Person has. We might multiply the presence of the 
image or picture of an individual for an indefinite 
number of tinges, but such images would not have 
conscious egos, minds and wills such as the living 
individual has. When Adam and Eve "multiplied" 
(Gen. 1 :28) themselves did it not result in separate 
egos with separate minds and wills in each multiplication 
of themselves ? Multiplication, then, means as many sepa- 
rate egos, minds and wills as there are multiplications of 
an entity with a separate ego, mind and will, does it not ? 
Yes. The multiplication, then, of the Presence of 
Christ in separate Eucharists must then make a sepa- 
rate Christ, with a separate ego, mind and will in 
each Eucharist. And would that not make a multi- 
plicity of "whole and entire" Christs were He present 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 25 

in each Eucharist on the many altars in Catholic 
churches ? Yes. 

The following illustration does not remove the 
difficulty of that fact, nor answer it : 

Let us illustrate this in some way. The Scripture itself 
seems to suggest an illustration. It often speaks of our Lord 
as the Word of the Father; the Word made flesh. But let us 
take an ordinary word — a human word. Consider what an illus- 
tration it affords us. I utter a word, and at once that word is 
intimately present with each one who hears it. That word in 
its entirety penetrates into every ear that is open to sound. 
If but one person be present, he receives the word in its entirety. 
If five hundred or a thousand persons be present, each indi- 
vidual of that multitude receives the same word in its entirety. 
No one receives more than another; each has what the other 
has; no more, no less, ... A beautiful image, surely, of the 
Word of God, the Eternal Word made flesh, . . . entering 
into the soul of every communicant. We may still further illus- 
trate the Catholic doctrine by pointing out another name given 
to Jesus Christ, He is spoken of as the wisdom of the Father; 
or, again, as the Truth. ... So in the Blessed Sacrament, 
if one hundred particles are consecrated, the incarnate wisdom 
of God is present under each, just as the wisdom of any author 
is present in each of a hundred volumes. . . . And just as 
the same truth is equally present, whether in small type or large 
type, so the same Jesus Christ is equally present, whether the 
accidents of the Host, ». e., the shape, color and size, be the 
same or different. This is, of course, only an analogy; a mere 
illustration, and not to be pressed too far; for, whereas in a 
book the truth is merely expressed by signs; in the Blessed 
Sacrament the Eternal Truth, i. e., the infinite God, is substan- 
tially present in His human and Divine nature (Thoughts for 
All Times, Right Rev. Mgr. John S. Vaughan, pp, 150-153). 

Would that not still make a multiplicity of Gods 
were He "substantially present in His human and 
Divine nature" in each Eucharist or part of Eucharist, 
made a "concrete reality" in each? Five hundred or 



26 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

a thousand persons may hear, as well as though there 
were but one person present, the selfsame words ut- 
tered by a speaker, but the words are not the speaker 
himself "whole and entire" by any means, they are 
at the most only his spirit, thoughts and sentiments. 
Nor are the contents of a book the author himself 
"whole and entire," and when the book is torn the 
truth in it is broken, disconnected. Nor is a book 
a conscious entity as each Eucharistic Christ is supposed 
to be, that is, to the eyes of faith He is. And if He were 
not, then what would be the difference between a God of 
"concrete reality" in the Eucharist and a pagan god of 
^'concrete reality" in wood or stone? 

To focus and localize God "in His human and 
Divine nature" would also be to circumscribe Him. 
But as He is an Infinite Being He cannot be focused 
into anything and be localized so that it could be said : 
Here is God, but not there; or. Here is more of His 
Spirit than there; for no one knows "whence He 
Cometh, and whither He goeth" (John 3:8). He 
is as universal as gravitation, and no one can focus 
and localize it and say: Here is gravitation, but not 
there; or, here is more gravitation than is there. It 
is the same with the omnipresence of God, His Spirit, 
it is universal and cannot be focused and localized 
into anything of a "concrete reality," be it in the 
Eucharist or not. 

In view, then, of what we have seen, the illustra- 
tions used by the Church, and the claim of the multi- 
plication of the Presence, but not the Person, of 
Christ-God, do not remove the difficulty of the multi- 
plicity of Christ-Gods, with separate egos, minds and 
wills, were Transubstantiation true and the "human 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 27 

and Divine nature" of Christ-God was localized in 
every Eucharist, was made a "concrete reality." 

Again ; when a book, the "accidents" in which the 
truth is inherent, is destroyed, so that its specific form, 
its "concrete reality," is no longer in existence, then 
what becomes of the truth, "substance"? Is it not 
destroyed so far as that particular book is concerned? 
Yes. In like manner, then, if the Word and Wisdom 
of the Father form a separate conscious entity in every 
Eucharist, then what becomes of that entity after the 
Eucharist in which it was inherent has "ceased be- 
cause of digestion," been destroyed by "natural heat" ? 
Is it merged with another separate conscious entity 
of Christ-God inherent in another Eucharist, or with 
the "Lord's sacred Body in Heaven"? If so, then 
would that not add to the quantity or size of it? 

The multiplication, then, of the Presence of Christ- 
God in many localized Eucharists, without multiply- 
ing the ego, mind and will of Christ-God, is certainly 
nothing but theological "verbiage," which it seems 
some admire. 

Nothing can impose better on a people than verbiage; the 
less they understand the more they admire. Our fathers and 
doctors have often said, not what they thought, but what cir- 
cumstances and necessity forced them to — St. Gregory to St. 
Jerome (Isis Unveiled, P. P. Blavatsky, Vol. 2, p. 183). 

Again, would you imbibe and assimilate truth or 
the wisdom in a book by eating the book with your 
mouth, because it says: 

They that eat me (wisdom), shall yet hunger; and they that 
drink me, shall yet thirst (Eccles. 24:29)? 

No. Is it not an error, then, to believe that one 
can imbibe, assimilate and put on the "wisdom of the 



28 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Father," the Word, Truth, Christ, His "spirit and Hfe," 
by eating Him Hterally with one's mouth, that is, by 
receiving Catholic Communion? 

The Church, as it were, has eaten with the mouth 
the Person of Christ instead of with the mind and 
will, a mental operation, imbibing and assimilating 
His "spirit and life," just as one would eat a book 
in order to acquire the truth or wisdom inherent in 
it, instead of reading it and imbibing and assimilating 
its contents with the mind and understanding. 

Besides, truth, words and wisdom in many books 
are not living conscious entities as Christ-God is sup- 
posed to be in each Eucharist. And if he is not con- 
sciously present in each Eucharist, then why do 
Catholics prostrate themselves before it and pray to 
it? They do not look beyond the Eucharist for God 
as one does of a picture of a person for that person. 
Christ, then, is not present in the Eucharist, unless we 
admit a multiplicity of Christ-Gods, is He? No. 

Again, were there a Real Presence then no doubt 
the Apostles would have been puzzled to know which 
Christ they should have adored and worshiped, the 
one each supposedly had within himself or the one 
who sat in full view before them and conversed with 
them. For the Church teaches that right after the 
reception of Communion Christ is nearer to and closer 
united to the communicant than He possibly could 
be under any other circumstances, and that we should 
then — 

Listen for a moment to Jesus Christ; perhaps He has some- 
thing to say to you. There may be some promise you have 
made and broken, which He wishes you to make again and 
keep. Answer Jesus in your heart, and tell Him all your 
troubles (The Mass Book, Rev. A. P. Doyle, p. 42). 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 29 

It seems, though, that the Apostles, after they had 
communicated, did not listen to or tell their troubles 
to the supposed "Jesus in their hearts," but conversed 
with and followed "unto Mount Olivet" (Matt. 26: 
29) the living Jesus whom they beheld with their nat- 
ural eyes. They just acted, as Protestants do, as though 
the bread and wine which they had just partaken were 
only as so much blessed bread and wine, which Christ 
used with which to institute a memorial of His death, 
"until He come." 

The puzzle in question ought no doubt also be one 
to the present-day thinking clerics and laymen, who 
have just communicated, as to which Christ-God they 
should have in mind and thought when they adore 
and worship a living Christ-God, the one each has 
just supposedly received in Communion, and who is 
supposed to be within one "whole and entire," "dwells 
in the hearts of His creatures corporally" (Aspirations 
of Nature, Very Rev. I. T. Hecker, p. 326), or the 
one who is supposed at the very same time to be a 
^'concrete reality" upon the altar in the Eucharist. 
And did you ever think of that when you communi- 
cated and believed you had a "whole and entire" living 
Christ-God "corporally" within yourself, while at the 
very same time there was supposed to be one in "con- 
crete reality" upon the altar to whom you genuflected 
when you left the Communion railing or the church? 
Now candidly, if you are a Catholic, did you ever 
think of that when you communicated? I venture to 
say you did not. Oh, the blindness and thoughtless- 
ness of man at times with regard to some of the 
Catholic teachings and practices! But, then, I was 
that way once myself, and it was only through a severe 
affliction, that made the occasion for me to do much 



30 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

reading for pastime, that my eyes were opened and 
I began to think of what I was doing when I received 
Catholic Communion. 

Then again, were the doctrine of the Real Presence 
true, it would seem to be a shocking thought to think 
that Christ-God was in one's stomach immediately after 
having received Him in Communion, if He can be 
localized in a Host. For that is where He would be 
if He is inherent in and inseparable from the Host so 
long as the "natural heat" has not yet destroyed the 
Host, which faith tells us is the living God, as may 
be seen by the following: 

No voice comes from the Tabernacle to stir the hearts of 
men. The Sacred Host gives no outward token of the Living^ 
Presence within. . . . All that our eyes perceive is a round, 
white piece of bread, which faith tells us is the living God 
(Tabernacle and Purgatory, August, 1905, p. 37). 

There is hardly any doubt about it that the "living 
God" goes into the stomach of the communicant. For 
when I used to receive Communion lying in bed, dur- 
ing the time that I was bedfast, the priest who brought 
the "living God" to me in a handbag (which shows 
that when a priest carries a handbag one cannot tell 
whether it contains some clean linen or the "living 
God," his Creator, the creature carrying in his hand- 
bag his Creator "whole and entire"), and administered 
Communion to me, immediately after giving me the 
Host would give me a tablespoonful of water with 
which to wash it down. The church also teaches the 
following : 

Communion should not be received if there is any danger 
of vomiting shortly after (How to Become a Catholic, Rev. 
George M. Searle, p. 81). 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 31 

But why should vomiting have anything to do with 
the Real Presence or have any effect on it, unless 
Christ-God really is inherent in the Host when it 
reaches and is in the stomach? And is the Eucharist 
then a sort of a magnet that draws and holds God, and 
the moment it is ejected by vomiting it draws Him 
with itself from the vomiting communicant; or 
when it has "ceased because of digestion" He can 
then make His get-away? 

The Church teaches further the following: 

Spitting should be avoided for about half an hour after 
receiving, for fear that some particle of the Blessed Sacrament 
[God] might be rejected in this way. ... It will usually 
be acted on more quickly by the stomach than by the mouth 
(How to Become a Catholic, Rev. Searle, pp. 81, 84). 

Do not keep the Sacred Host [God] in your mouth until it 
is quite dissolved; but let it moisten a little upon your tongue, 
and then swallow it (Deharbe's Catechism No. 1, p. 273). 

Now, where does God go but into the stomach 
when the Host received in Communion is washed 
down with a tablespoonful of water or is moistened 
upon the tongue, is swallowed, is acted upon by the 
stomach and one must avoid "spitting for about half 
an hour after receiving," if the "living God" is inher- 
ent in and inseparable from the Eucharist as long as 
the "natural heat" of the stomach has not destroyed 
its appearances? He must, then, go into the stomach, 
must He not? Yes. Or if He should not be in the 
stomach of the communicant, but in his heart, then 
while God is in the heart does He keep an eye on the 
Host in the stomach of the communicant and the 
moment He sees that it has "ceased because of diges- 
tion," or He sees the sick communicant vomiting 
"shortly after," or sees him spitting within "half an 



32 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

hour after receiving," He makes His presence in the 
heart to cease also by taking leave of it ? How absurd 
that would be if He did that. Yet that is the way God 
would have to act did He not go into one's stomach 
at the reception of the Host, which goes into the 
stomach. The "living God," then, must go into the 
stomach of the communicant, must He not? Yes. 
Then think of God, your Creator, "whole and entire," 
stalking about or swimming around in your stomach, 
or being buried under an avalanche of food. For no 
doubt some communicants, as on holy days or during 
missions, when they must soon after receiving Com- 
munion eat a hurried breakfast so as to get to their 
places of occupation on time, or the bedfast sick, begin 
to eat before the "natural heat" — unless it is pretty 
strong — has caused the Host to be destroyed. Shock- 
ing! shocking! shocking is such a thought, is it not! 
Yes. Yet such would be the case were there a Real 
Presence of the "living God" in the Host as long as 
it had not "ceased because of digestion." Is that 
not so? Yes. The "living God," then, is not in the 
Eucharist, is He? No. 

Again, if spitting and vomiting too soon after re- 
ceiving Communion causes the presence of Christ-God 
to cease, to leave, then that does not agree with the 
statement of the Catholic professor who said that 
^'Christ is and remains in your soul as long as you 
do not chase Him away by sin and enthrone Satan 
in His place," does it? No. Which of the two, then, 
is right? If the Church is right, then the "living God" 
must go into the stomach of the communicant; for 
if He did not, and He is in the heart of the communi- 
cant, then what difference should it make whether or 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 33 

not the communicant vomited "shortly after" or 
should spit? Think of that question again. 

Writing in the third person to an authoritative 
publication of the Church, in order to be sure that my 
questions would be answered, about the doctrine of 
the Real Presence and that it would appear to be a 
shocking thought to think that "then in Communion 
God would go into one's stomach," it had the fol- 
lowing to say: 

Our correspondent has made a poor choice of the "absur- 
dities" which flow from the literal eating of the flesh of Christ, 
when he chose the fact that the consecrated wafer "goes into 
the stomach." It may "shock" him, but that is because his 
nervous system is in a morbid condition, but it does not shock 
healthy mortals, nor is it any more absurd than the fact which 
Hows from the very nature of God, that God by His essence, 
power, knowledge, providence, is everywhere, wholly and en- 
tirely present (Truth, February, 1908, p. 263). 

If the foregoing is true, then can a priest focus or 
compress into a wafer more of the "essence," substance 
of God than is "everywhere, wholly and entirely pres- 
ent," and say to the people : 

Here in the consecrated wafer is more of the "essence," sub- 
stance of God than is everywhere where there is no consecrated 
wafer ? 

No, he cannot, if what St. Paul said is true, that 
^'they are not Gods which are made by hands" (Acts 
19:26), and that God "dwelleth not in houses or temples 
made by hand" (Acts 7:48 and 17:24), he cannot focus 
or compress God into any certain spot or place and 
make Him a "concrete reality," "objectively present," 
no more so than he can focus gravitation into any 
certain place. Yet one Sunday a priest in his sermon, 
3 



34 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

when speaking about God and pagan gods said, as 
he turned towards the altar and pointed to it: 

We have not a deaf and dumb God as is the man-made god 
of wood or stone of the pagans, who cannot hear or answer 
prayers, but we have a Hving God, who Hves and is there 
present in the Tabernacle upon the altar. 

Make your own comments. 

Then again, if God were present in the Eucharist, 
the question arises, who or what mutilates or 
mangles Him and deprives or drives out from His 
supposed flesh and blood the living Soul that per- 
meated them or His body, so that His body can be 
fed upon, be digested and its assimilated substance 
flow in the veins of the communicant as "the blood 
of a God ?" For the Church teaches the following : 

My soul, thou art (in Communion) about to feed upon 
the blessed body of Jesus. And hast thou well considered what 
thou art, and who God is? (The Hidden Treasure, St. Leonard 
of Port Maurice, p. 217). 

You can say with truth, especially after having received 
Holy Communion, that the blood of a God flows in your veins 
(The Prodigal Son; or. The Sinner's Return to God, Rev. 
Michael Miiller, p. 88). 

St. Ephrem, of Edessa, says: "His body, by a new method, 
is mixed with our bodies (hi Communion), and His most 
pure blood is transfused into our veins. He is wholly incor- 
porated with us" (The Real Presence, Rev. C. F. Smarius, S. 
J., p. 19). 

If,' then, in Communion we "feed upon the blessed 
body of Jesus," God, "His body is mixed with our 
bodies, and his most pure blood is transfused into 
our veins," so that then "the blood of a God flows 
in our veins," then something or some one must muti- 
late and mangle Him and drive His Soul or life out 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 35 

of His body so that it can be fed upon, be digested 
and its substance flow in the veins of communicants 
as "the blood of a God;" just as something must muti- 
late and mangle, for instance, a live "whole and en- 
tire" grasshopper that has thus been swallowed by 
a turkey, and deprive it of its life or drive it out, so 
that its dead body can be digested and its substance flow 
in the veins of the turkey as the blood of a grasshopper. 
Is that not so? Yes. Well, that is another thought 
too shocking to admit. In view of that, then, the 
^'living God" is not in the Eucharist, is He? Hardly. 

Again, if the Soul of God is driven out of His 
body when it is consumed, digested and its substance 
flows in our veins as "the blood of a God," then what 
becomes of that particular Soul, mind and will that 
inhabited the body ? 

Again, how is the glorified body of Christ-God in 
Heaven "mixed with our bodies, incorporated with 
us," if it is not mutilated and mangled, digested 
and assimilated? Or does one after all not eat 
and drink the literal flesh and blood of Christ, 
such as the Jews apparently believed they were to 
eat and drink? And if so, then were they not misled 
by the repetition of the declarations of Christ, that one 
must eat the flesh of the Son of Man, etc.? He must 
then be mutilated and mangled, must He not, if He 
is really eaten and drunk in Communion, and there is a 
Real Presence in the Host? Yes. But such a proposi- 
tion cannot be admitted. There is, then, no Real 
Presence in the Hos^, is there? No. 

In writing Truth about the Real Presence and that 
"then something would have to mangle the ^living 
God' and drive from His flesh and blood His living 
Soul," it said: 



36 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

We are positively pained to find that our correspondent 
whose former letters give us to understand that he is an as- 
siduous reader of Truth misrepresents Catholic doctrine on a 
point on which a question was answered in July Truth, page 
66. "Death, such as the death which awaits each one of us, 
that is, the separation of soul and body, is that death, which as 
St. Paul says. He *die§ no more'.'' This is the only answer 
we feel obliged to give to his objection that "Then something 
would have to mangle the 'living God' and drive from His 
flesh and blood His living soul" (Truth, February, 1908, p. 
263). 

The question in its July number referred to is the 
following, which was asked by another correspondent : 

When the Host, or consecrated wafer, which is Christ, is 
eaten, and, as Christ dies on being eaten, are not the material 
elements left in His corpse? Now suppose the digestive organs 
of the partaker are in such an abnormal condition that this 
sacred species are not digested, is there then a miracle per- 
formed changing it back into bread again, or does it remain 
His corpse? 

Answer: The death of Christ, on the consumption of the 
Sacred Host is not death in the ordinary sense of the v/ord, but a 
mystical death. Death, such as the death which awaits each one 
of us, that is, the separation of soul and body, is that death, 
which, as St. Paul says. He "dies no more?" In the sacrifice of 
the Mass and the Blessed Eucharist Christ sheds His blood for 
us in a mystical manner, by the separate consecration of the 
bread and wine, and He dies in a mystical manner also by the 
withdrawal of the Presence from the elements of bread and wine. 
This withdrawal occurs when such a physical change takes place 
in the bread and wine as that they no longer have such appear- 
ances or accidents as would entitle them still to be called bread 
and wine. There is never left in them "a dead body of Christ". 
When this occurs the substance of the body and blood of Christ, 
which before supported the appearances, or accidents of bread 
and wine, is withdrawn, and those accidents are again supported 
by the substance proper to them, in a word, the elements again 
become what they appear to be. As may be seen from what has 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 37 

been said, it is not necessary for the bread and wine to be 
asssimilated as food in order that the Real Presence be with- 
drawn (Truth, July, 1907, p. 66). 

(A Catholic professor believes, as we saw, that 
the Presence of Christ remains "as long as you do not 
chase Him away by sin." He and Truth ought to 
get together and smooth that over in some way.) 

How is that a "mystical" death if Christ simply 
makes only a departure and goes to— where? when 
He withdraws His Presence from the Eucharist that 
is not consumed, or "dies on the consumption of the 
Host?" Would you call it a death of any kind when 
a person simply goes from one place to another, or 
withdraws from a certain place? The Church says 
further : 

Christ is mystically immolated (on the altar), and afterwards 
eaten by the faithful, as in the Jewish and heathenish sacrifices 
the victim was first offered on the altar, and then eaten by the 
people (Truth, August, 1905, p. 117). 

What is a "mystical death" or immolation if it 
is not a real death that^ separates the soul from the 
body? And what is it to shed blood "in a mystical 
manner?" Is not the apparent shedding of blood and 
death of an actor in a tragedy on the stage a shedding 
of blood "in a mystical manner" and a "mystical 
death," which are in reality only unrealities, shams? 
And if so, then would not likewise a shedding of 
blood "in a mystical manner" and a "mystical death" 
of Christ in Mass be but unrealities, shams? And if 
so, then how is the Mass a true and genuine sacrifice 
when a true and genuine sacrifice requires that a liv- 
ing victim be literally put to death "and is then con- 
sumed," "as in the Jewish and heathenish sacrifices," 
and a sacrifice — 



38 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Is the oblation of a victim to God to represent by its destruc- 
tion or change His supreme dominion over Hfe and death 
(Reasonableness of Catholic Ceremonies and Practices, Rev. J. 
J. Burke, p. 22) ? 

How is Christ destroyed or changed, in order to 
show God's "supreme dominion over life and death," 
if Christ "dies no more?" Would not a "mystical 
death" of Christ in Mass only make it a sham, a 
pretense, if He "dies no more?" And is the eating of 
the victim "by the faithful" also only a "mystical" 
eating, a pretense of eating Christ, but not really eat- 
ing Him after all, just like His "mystical death" in 
Mass is no death after all, but only a pretense of a 
death, a sham? The Mass has not even the semblance 
of the commemoration of the Lord's death, "until He 
come," for which the Lord's Supper was instituted, 
if we take the Bible narrative of it. The Protestant 
Communion service, or observance of the Lord's Sup- 
per, on the other hand, has a very striking semblance 
to it, that becomes apparent at once when one wit- 
nesses it, and has a Bible knowledge of the Lord's 
Supper and the object for which it was instituted, 
which was "to show the death of the Lord, until He 
come" (I Cor. ii :26). 

Again, if Christ "dies in a mystical manner also 
by the withdrawal of the Presence from the elements 
of bread and wine," "when such a physical change 
takes place in the bread and wine as that they no 
longer have" the appearances of bread and wine, then 
how has one eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and 
drunk His blood, "consumed" Him so that the "blood 
of a God" flows in his veins? Would you call that 
eating and consuming a meal if it was shortly after 
being eaten vomited out again "whole and entire," 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 39 

so that its substance could not be digested and assimi- 
lated into flesh and blood? And is the precept of 
eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ im- 
possible to be complied with if one's "digestive organs" 
are in an "abnormal condition?" And if so, and such 
a one cannot literally "eat the flesh of the Son of 
Man," then how will he have "everlasting life," if 
John 6:54, 55 is to be taken in the literal sense, as 
the Church does? Would that not make salvation de- 
pendent a great deal on the condition of one's "diges- 
tive organs?" Yes. But we will see later that John 
6:53-57 is not to be taken in the literal sense, and 
what it really means to "eat the flesh of the Son of 
Man," if it does not mean a literal eating with the 
mouth of something that is supposed to be Christ-God, 
and that, therefore, it has nothing to do with "diges- 
tive organs." 

Again, how has one eaten the flesh and drunk the 
blood of Christ if He is not present in the Eucharist 
with His Person, but only with His Presence, as we 
saw? It seems to be a case of "now you do, and you 
do not," eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ. 
Surely a "mystery!" 

Again, what causes Christ to withdraw Himself 
from the Eucharist and by doing so die "in a mystical 
manner," when the Eucharist is not "assimilated as 
food" by one whose "digestive organs are in an ab- 
normal condition?" Is it fermentation, chemicaliza- 
tion or retransubstantiation? And where was He 
during the time the appearances of bread and wine had 
not yet undergone a "physical change?" Was He in 
the communicant's heart? If so^ then does He keep 
an eye on the bread and wine in the stomach of the 
communicant, and the moment He sees they fail to 



40 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

digest and assimilate as food make His withdrawal? 
Would that not be absurd if He did that? And is 
His presence governed and regulated by the action 
of the "digestive organs"? Or was He during the 
time the bread and wine had not yet undergone in 
the stomach a "physical change" in the stomach with 
them? And if so, would that not be shocking? And 
how does He make His exit when He makes His 
withdrawal, being that it apparently requires a magnet, 
the Host, to get Him into one's interior? Does He 
come back through the throat and mouth, the way 
He went in? Or how does He make His exit, if He 
is not "consumed" and He withdraws His presence? 
Again, if a communicant's "digestive organs are 
in such an abnormal condition that the sacred species 
are not digested," so that then "the Real Presence is 
withdrawn" and "the elements again become what 
they appear to be," that is, bread and wine, then would 
not a miracle of re-transubstantiation have to take 
place? For, as we saw, transubstantiation effects an 
entire change "of the bread and wine's substance into 
the substance of Christ," "annihilates" them, "so that no 
bread and wine whatsoever" remain ; just as no substance 
of an egg whatsoever remains that has been changed into 
a living chicken. How, then, can He withdraw Himself 
from elements of bread and wine when no such ele- 
ments remain after the consecration, they having been 
entirely changed into Christ? How could a chicken 
be withdrawn from the elements of an egg when no 
such elements remain, they having been entirely 
changed into a living chicken? Would that not be 
impossible without a re-transubstantiation, a chang- 
ing back of a substance into that which it was original- 
ly? Yes. If, then, the "substance of Christ," His 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 41 

body, blood, soul and divinity — the whole living Christ 
— in the appearances of bread and wine that are not 
digested by one in "an abnormal condition" are 
changed back again into the substances of natural 
bread and wine, such as they were before they were 
transubstantiated, would not a miracle of retransub- 
stantiation have to take place, just as a miracle of re- 
transubstantiation or re-changing would have to take 
place if a living chicken should be changed back again 
into the former inanimate substances of the egg that 
produced it? Yes. Who or what, then, performs that 
miracle, Christ, fermentation or the communicant's 
"abnormal condition?" And when this retransub- 
stantiation takes place, then does the ego, mind and 
will of Christ that inhabited the body under the ap- 
pearances of bread and wine vanish to nothingness 
like the ego of a chicken would whose flesh and blood 
should be changed back into an egg again ? 

The Church teaches that one of the essential "prac- 
tices in the life of a Catholic" is to receive "sacramen- 
tal Communion, in which not bread and wine but the 
real Body and Blood of Christ are received" (A Truth- 
Seeker and His Answers^ Rev. A. P. Doyle, p. 25). 
If, then, no bread and wine are received then how 
can Christ withdraw Himself from their elements 
when no such elements were received by and are 
present in the communicant whose digestive organs are 
in "an abnormal condition?" Probably that is "dig- 
ging a litle deeper" than the Church likes or would 
have a "truth-seeker" go. But by doing this '^dig- 
ging a little deeper" may it not easily be seen that the 
Church flatly contradicts herself or falls into unan- 
swerable difliculties? For surely if in Communion is 
received "not bread and wine but the real Body and 



42 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Blood of Christ," then it is certainly a contradiction 
and a difficulty for Christ to withdraw Himself from 
elements that were not received and no longer exist, 
have been ''annihilated," as we saw. The only way, 
then, that elements of bread and wine could be left 
behind in a communicant whose digestive organs were 
in an "abnormal condition" would be for Christ to re- 
transubstantiate Himself back again into elements of 
bread and wine out of which He was made by "the word 
of a priest," which is supposed to be more "than creating 
the world" out of nothing. 

It also makes the Presence of Christ dependent on 
the condition of the digestive organs of the communi- 
cant, and not on his disposition and life and conduct. 

Transubstantiation falls all to pieces when one 
*'digs a little deeper" than the Church goes, does it not? 
Yes. That, then, proves that it is an error and that, 
therefore, there is no Real Presence of Christ in Com- 
munion bread and wine. 



CHAPTER III. 

In the preceding chapter we saw that for a priest 
to make a God "out of a piece of bread" is "more than 
creating the world" — out of nothing. If a priest has — 
which means that all priests have — such great power 
so that he can actually do that, then why do not all 
priests, if they are the "only authorized ministers of 
Christ," and the Catholic Church is the true and only 
Church of Christ, as she claims, heal the sick by speak- 
ing over them Christ's words, "Arise, and walk," so 
that we might have concrete proof of their power of 
performing abstract things, invisible miracles, that 
is, make "a God out of a piece of bread," being that 
Christ commanded His disciples, or — 

Sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the 
sick (Luke 9:2)? 

Besides, the Church says: 

It is not more difficult for the Son of God to render His body 
present in the Eucharist, by saying ''this is my body", than to 
cure a sick woman, by saying ''woman, thou art delivered from 
thy infirmity" (Luke xiii. 12) ; or to preserve the life of a young 
man, by saying to his father "thy son Uveth" (John iv. 50) ; or, 
in short, to pardon the man, sick of the palsy, by saying to him 
"thy sins are forgiven thee" (An Exposition of the Doctrines of 
The Catholic Church, Right Rev. James B. Bossuet, pp. 62, 63). 

What Christ effected personally whilst dwelling on earth, the 
same He effects through His ministers now that He sits at the 
right hand of His Father in heaven (The Sacramental Life of 
The Church, Rev. B. J. Otten, S. J., p. 17). 

We see our Lord acting through the ministrations of His 
priests, and thus we say: "The Priest is another Christ" — Rt. 

43 



44 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Rev. Charles H. Colton (Messenger of the Sacred Heart, Febru- 
ary, 1909, p. 67). 

By the mysterious and divine words uttered by the priest, or 
rather by Jesus Christ, who speaks by His minister, the same 
miracle of love which was operated at the Last Supper, on Holy 
Thursday, is daily renewed on our altars (Short Answers to 
Common Objections Against Religion, Rev. L. A. Lambert, LL. 
D., p. 184). 

If all the foregoing are true, then why do priests 
not perform the "miracle of love" of healing the sick 
and painfully afflicted? Would not to heal them be 
a "miracle of love"? The Church says the following 
when it comes to consecration : 

I (a priest) ascend the altar to say Mass, and taking a piece 
of bread I hold it before me, and pronounce the solemn words 
of consecration, and by the infinite power of God the "mystery 
of faith" is wrought. The substance of bread is no longer there. 
In its place is the substance of the body of Christ (Thoughts 
For All Times, Rev. Vaughan, p. 142). 

(Yet if the communicant's "digestive organs are 
in an abnormal condition," the "mystery of faith" is 
unwrought by the "substance of the Body of Christ" 
becoming "the substance of bread," which "is no 
longer there." Surely there must be performed a 
miracle of retransubstantiation. But by whom or 
what?) 

If a priest can work the "mystery of faith," then 
he should also do this: 

I go to the bedside of a sick person, and taking the hand of 
the sick one before me, and pronounce the solemn words of heal- 
ing, "Arise and walk", or, "Be thou delivered of thy infinnity", 
and by the infinite power of God health is wrought in the sick 
person. The sickness is no longer there. In its place there is 
now health. 

Now, why do priests not do the latter if they can 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 45 

do the former, if they have such great power as the 
Church would have us believe they have? Besides, 
the Church teaches the following: 

Does not the efficacy of the Sacraments also depend on the 
worthiness or unworthiness of those who administer them? 

No, for the Sacraments have their efficacy, not from him 
who administers them, but from the merits of Jesus Christ, by 
whom they were instituted (Deharbe's Catechism No. 1, p. 246). 

The Sacrifice itself does not cease to be agreeable to God, 
although the priest who celebrates (Mass) may be wicked and 
sacrilegious, seeing that the principal offerer is Christ our Lord, 
and the priest is His mere minister (The Hidden Treasure, St. 
Leonard of Port Maurice, p. 41). 

If such is really the case, then, that priests, who 
are "unworthy," or, "wicked and sacrilegious," can 
celebrate Masses that do not "cease to be agreeable to 
God," in which their pronouncing over bread wafers 
Christ's words "This is My body," changes them into 
the body and blood of Christ, and which Hosts are 
administered to communicants without affecting the 
"efficacy of the Sacrament" of the Eucharist, then all 
priests, whether saintly or "wicked and sacrilegious," 
ought to be able to make the sick of all kind get up 
and walk or make them well, by pronouncing over 
them Christ's words "Arise, and walk," or, "Be thou 
delivered of thy infirmity," should they not? Yes. 
Why, then, do they not perform the "miracle of love" 
of healing the sick? Did they do that it might save 
Catholics to the Church, keep them from apostatizing. 
I know of a one time good Catholic who left the 
Church after the death of his wife. While she was 
sick he prayed the Rosary, attended Mass at every 
opportunity he had, and had a number of Masses said 
for her recovery, so strong was his faith in their 



46 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

efficacy. After she died he lost faith in the Mass and 
Rosary, no doubt judging them by their fruits, and 
finally lost faith in the teachings of the Church, which 
are peculiar to herself. In due time he married again, 
married a Protestant and was married by a Protestant 
minister, which is certainly an awful thing to do in 
the estimation of the Church. Now, if a priest had 
healed his wife, by pronouncing over her Christ's words 
"woman, thou art delivered of thy infirmity," would 
that not have been as great a "miracle of love" cs to 
say over a piece of bread, "this is my body," which 
would then have placed an inanimate Eucharistic God 
on the altar, from whom "no voice ever comes," as 
we saw? Yes. Why, then, do priests not heal the 
sick? For it seems it would be just as easy for them 
to say over the sick, "Arise, and walk," or, "Be thou 
made whole," or, "Thou art delivered of thy infirmity," 
as it is to say over a piece of bread, "This is my 
body," which is then supposed to make "a God," which 
"is more than creating the world" out of nothing. 
And it certainly is "more than creating the world" out 
of nothing, to make the Infinite, Eternal and Uncreated 
God. Even God Himself could not make another God 
like Himself (Tactics of Infidels, Rev. L. A. Lambert, 
LL. D., p. 39). Now, if priests can do that which "is 
more than creating the world" out of nothing, then 
why do they not heal the sick? It may be said, that 
if they healed the sick we would never die, as though 
we could not die of maturity as do the fruits of the 
field, or that it would be a manifestation of "miracu- 
lous power." But if the Eucharist "is a miracle sur- 
passing all other miracles" (What The Church Teach- 
es, Rev. Edwin Drury, p. 248), and priests can work 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 47 

the greater miracle, then should they not also be able 
to work the lesser one of healing the sick? Yes. 

Had a priest healed me years ago, so that the oc- 
casion for reading much for pastime would not have 
come to me, I would without question be to-day as 
good a Catholic as I was prior to the time that I be- 
came afflicted and began to read for pastime. Why, 
then, do priests not heal the sick, if they are the 
instruments through which Christ operates and they 
were given "all power" (Matt. 28:18), as the Church 
claims was given to priests when it comes to forgiving 
sins in the confessional, or consecrating bread and 
wine into the "living God," and save Catholics to the 
Church, keep them from leaving her fold? It is no 
doubt because they have no more power to heal the 
sick than they have of making "out of a piece of 
bread" the uncreated, infinite, unchangeable and eter- 
nal God, who can not by man be focused into anything 
concrete, such as bread and wine, and be localized, be 
made a "concrete reality," so that it can be said that 
"here is God, but not there," or, "here is more of the 
essence of God than there," or, "here God is objec- 
tively present." Now back to where we digressed. 

Again, were there a Real Presence in the Eucharist, 
then would it not be cannibalism to communicate, if 
the following are true? 

The "Lord's Supper" is to Catholics . . . that "body 
which is given for you" — that "blood shed for you", bone of 
your bone, flesh of your flesh, blood of your blood (The Gospel 
Plea for Christian Unity, Rev. Martin O'Donoghue, p. 69). 

The flesh of our Lord, which was formed from the most pure 
blood of His Holy Mother in His Incarnation, is the same^'flesh 
that we receive in Holy Communion (Magazine, Perpetual Ador- 
ation, 1905, p. 2). 

The Host is the same body, in which, for the sins of men. 



48 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Jesus suffered cold and nakedness, . . . and finally death 
on the cross (A Pious Preparation for First Holy Communion, 
Rev. F. X. Lasance, p. 43). 

In view of the foregoing, then, would it not be a 
species of rank cannibalism to communicate were 
Christ really present in the Eucharist? 

But, says Truth: 

With regard to the cannibalism implied in the expression of 
Catholic writers, such as "the blood of a God flows in your 
veins", they are no more truly so than is St. Paul's expression, 
*'I live, now not I, hut Christ liveth in me", a pantheistic expres- 
sion, and they are used in a similar manner. . . . For us to 
be guilty of cannibalism we must eat the flesh "formed from the 
most pure blood of His Holy Mother", in its natural state. We 
need not deny that the Church teaches such a hideous doctrine. 
Christ is really, truly, wholly, substantially, bodily, present and 
is so eaten in Holy Communion, but He is not carnally present, 
with the accidents of weight, extension, form, color, odor, taste. 
No Catholic writer entertains such a horrible idea of that Holy 
of Holies. Our correspondent asks if the Catholic doctrine is 
not an absurdity and manifest error? If it were as he misrep- 
resents it, it would be a manifest blasphemy (Truth, February, 
1908, pp. 263, 264). 

One of the Church Fathers said: 

If there remain the taste and color of bread and wine be thou 
persuaded that it is something else. While the taste and color 
remain, believe thou that what thou receivest is true flesh and 
blood (Quoted in Truth, July, 1907, p. 77). 

If it is not carnal flesh and blood, at least to the 
eyes of faith, that are received in Communion, then 
were the Jews not misled by the repetition of Christ's 
declaration of eating and drinking His flesh and blood 
(John 6:54-57), if the precept is to be taken as a 
mouth-eating and drinking act, as the Church has in- 
terpreted it? 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 49 

I will here give a more lengthy quotation about 
"the blood of a God flows in your veins/' so that it 
may be seen that it is not a figurative or "pantheistic 
expression" made use of by a Catholic writer: 

You can say with truth, especially after having received Holy 
Communion, that the blood of a God flows in your veins. What 
an unspeakable honor! Men boast of their ancestry. They are 
proud of royal blood and the blood of heroes. How great, then, 
is the honor of a Christian in whose veins flows the blood of 
the King of kings — the blood of God (The Prodigal Son, Rev. 
Michael Miiller, p. 88). 

Now, is it a "pantheistic expression" for a person 
of royal descent to say he has royal blood in him? Is 
it a "pantheistic expression" for a person of German 
and Irish descent to say he has German and Irish 
blood in him? Is it a figurative or pantheistic ex- 
pression to say that a cannibal, who has eaten the 
flesh of a missionary, and assimilated it, has the blood 
of a missionary flowing in his veins? No. If, then, 
one eats and drinks the flesh and blood of God, so 
that then — "especially after having received Holy 
Communion," and why "especially after having re- 
ceived Holy Communion," if it is not to be under- 
stood literally? — "the blood of a God flows in one's 
veins," is that a "pantheistic expression" to say one 
has the "blood of God" in one's veins? No, but it is 
as literally true as in the instances cited above. And 
if so, then is it not after the manner of cannibalism 
to communicate were there a Real Presence of Christ- 
God, in His "human and Divine nature," in the Eu- 
charist, and one should believe what he receives "is 
true flesh and blood" even though "there remain the 
taste and color of bread and wine" to the natural 
senses? To say it is not after the manner of canni- 



so HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

balism because Christ "is not carnally present," at 
least to the eyes of faith, but probably "mystically," 
then we would have just as much grounds for saying 
that Christ's "bone of your bone, flesh of your flesh, 
blood of your blood," and His "flesh formed from the 
most pure blood of His Holy Mother," were not car- 
nal bone, flesh and blood, but only "mystical" bone, 
flesh and blood ; that the body with which He suffered 
on the cross was not a carnal body but only a "mys- 
tical" one. That would not be far from saying that 
Christ did not come to earth and suffer a carnal cruci- 
fixion, but that He came only "mystically" and suf- 
fered only a "mystical" crucifixion. For it says in 
plain language that the Host "is the same flesh" of 
Christ as that was "which was formed from the most 
pure blood of His Holy Mother in His Incarnation," 
the same Christ who was put to death on the cross, 
was carnally present on earth about two thousand 
years ago. Christ, then, must be "carnally present" 
to the eyes of faith, even if not to the natural eyes, 
must He not, if there is a Real Presence in the Eu- 
charist and — 

The same body that was cradled in the manger at Bethlehem, 
the same blood that trickled down from the cross on Calvary, 
is there pulsating with life and energy (The Sacramental Life 
of the Church, Rev. B. J. Otten, S. J., p. 11^ ? 

And if so, then would that not still make it a 
species of cannibalism to receive Catholic Com- 
munion? Yes. But as that would be an absurdity, 
then is not the doctrine of the Real Presence an ab- 
surdity and a manifest error? And have I in any 
way misrepresented it, when all my quotations were 
taken from Catholic writings? 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 51 

St. Paul's saying — 

And I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me (Gal. 2: 20), 

means that the Spirit and teachings of Christ were 
ever present to his consciousness, reigned in him and 
governed his life, thought and conduct. But that is not 
a "pantheistic expression," but one of literal meaning. 
And it was not inspired through his having received 
Communion, but by having received the Spirit of 
Christ by faith, accepted His teachings, and letting 
them influence and govern his life and conduct. It 
was in that way also that he abided in Christ, "and 
Christ in him" (John 6:57). 

Again, if Christ is not, at least to the eyes of faith, 
"carnally present," then what kind of conception is 
one to have of His person when supposedly receiving 
Him in Communion? Is it to be a "mystical" one? 
And if so, then is He no more real in the Eucharist 
than is the "mystical" death He dies in Mass a real 
death? Or how does He, or should He, appear to 
the eyes of faith when He is received in Communion, 
if He is not "carnally present" to the eyes of faith 
as He was when on earth ? In fact, the Church says : 

Above all, excite your faith, remembering that it is the 
living Christ, God-man, who is coming to you. Represent to 
yourself your loving Saviour in the crib at Bethlehem, or when 
He passed through Judea curing the sick; look at Him on the 
Cross, His arms extended towards you (Frequent and Daily 
Communion, Father J. Lintelo, S. J., p. 48). 

When I was yet a Catholic and went to Com- 
munion I imagined I was receiving "precisely the 
same Christ born for us of Mary, the Virgin" (Spiri- 
tual Pepper and Salt, Right Rev. Wm. Stang, D. D., 
p. 92), who was once on earth, and was as "present 



52 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

in the Blessed Eucharist as He was present of old in 
the Supper Room on the eve of His death" (The 
Sacramental Life of The Church, Rev. B. J. Otten, p. 
loi), and as still pictured in prayer books, holy pic- 
tures, etc., and as described in the following: 

St John Chrysostom, who died in the beginning of the fifth 
century, preaching on the Eucharist, says : "If thou wert incor- 
poreal, He would have delivered to thee those same incorporeal 
gifts without covering. But since the soul is united to the body, 
He delivers to thee in things perceptible to the senses, the things 
to be apprehended by the understanding. How many nowadays 
say: *Would that we could look upon Him (Jesus') form. His 
figure, His raiment, His shoes.' Lo ! thou seest Him, touchest 
Him, eatest Him" (The Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal 
Gibbons, p. 340). 

According to that, Communicants should represent 
to themselves when receiving Communion as receiv- 
ing Christ as He was "in the crib at Bethlehem," as 
He was "when He passed through Judea," with "form, 
figure, raiment, shoes" — at least He should be so "per- 
ceptible to the senses" could one see Him with one's 
natural eyes. Or would the Church have us behold 
with the eyes of faith as receiving Christ as nude as 
He was when born? Or are His clothes now also 
spiritualized? And how does He, an infinite Being, 
go down the throat of the communicant, a finite being? 
Does He go down head first or feet first? Now all 
that may sound horribly shocking and cause one to 
shudder. But probably that is the only way one can 
be made to see and realize the great error of the 
Church's doctrine of the Real Presence. 

Besides, the Church takes her "warrant of Scrip- 
ture" for the literal eating of the flesh of Christ from 
John 6: 52-57, where Christ was "carnally present" 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 53 

and gave His hearers to understand that He would 
give them His "carnal" or literal flesh to eat literally. 
For how could they otherwise have said: "How can 
this man give us His flesh to eat" (John 6: 53) ? And 
the fact that then Christ repeated the carnally under- 
stood precept, instead of telling them He did not mean 
they were to literally eat His "carnal," literal flesh 
the same way they ate the flesh they bought "in the 
shambles of the meat market" (The Real Presence. 
Rev. Smarius, p. 9), shows that if John 6:52-57 is to 
be taken in the literal sense at all, the flesh to be 
eaten and the blood to be drunk must be "carnal" or 
literal flesh and blood at least to the eyes of faith even 
if not to the natural eyes. And such being the case, 
and in view of what we have seen, then is it not still 
after the manner of cannibalism to partake of Catholic 
Communion, were there a Real Presence of Christ 
of any kind in the Eucharist? 

Besides, the Church teaches that Christ spoke and 
forgave as man in the following: 

Our Divine Lord performed the miraculous cure (Matt. ix. 6) 
to convince them that God had communicated this power (of 
forgiving sins) to man. For He Himself was a perfect man, 
like unto us in all things save only sin. And He exercised this 
power not as God, but as man, not in heaven, but here upon 
earth (Who Can Forgive Sins, Rev. Patrick Denehy, p. 16). 

"But," said He, "that you may know that the Son of Man" 
— He does not say that you may know that the Son of God, 
but — "that you may know that the Son of Man . . . hath 
power on earth to forgive sins" . . . Here our Divine Sav- 
iour performed a miracle to prove that, even as man, He had 
the power of forgiving sins (Confession, Rev. Father Damen, 
S. J. p. 2). 

If Christ spoke as man when He spoke of Himself 



54 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

as "the Son of Man" in Matt. 9:6, then must He not 
also have spoken as man when He said: 

Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His 
blood, you shall not have life in you (John 6 : 54) ? 

He did not in that, like He did not in Matt. 9:6. 
speak of Himself as "the Son of God." If, then, He 
spoke as man, "not in heaven, but here upon earth," in 
John 6 : 53-57 He certainly must have meant the flesh 
and blood of the "Son of Man" to be literal, carnal 
flesh and blood, such as His flesh and blood were at 
the time He spoke to the Jews and as they appeared 
to them, otherwise they would have been misled, "de- 
ceived." For how otherwise could His flesh be "meat 
indeed, that is, it can be eaten indeed" (The Sacra- 
mental Life of the Church, Rev. B. J. Otten, p. 86) ? 
In view of that, would it not still be after the manner 
of cannibalism to the eyes of faith to communicate 
were there a Real Presence in the Eucharist? 

Again, if Christ spoke as man in John 6 : 53-57. 
like He did in Matt. 9 :6, then were the Jews not mis- 
led, by His repetition, in substance, of 6:53 in verses 
54-57, into believing they were to eat and drink His 
literal, carnal flesh and blood, if Christ at the time 
had in mind His "glorified Body in Heaven," into 
which the Church now claims the bread and wine are 
transubstantiated, and He did not mean His flesh and 
blood as that of the "Son of Man," "not in heaven, 
but here upon earth?" 

Again, if Christ spoke as the "Son of Man," not 
as the "Son of God," in John 6:53-57, then the flesh 
and blood He spoke of must have meant His human 
flesh and blood, though veiled under bread and wine. 
If so, then that does not dovetail with the teachings 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 55 

of the Church that in the Eucharist Christ "is present 
as a glorified spirit" (Sentinel of The Blessed Sacra- 
ment, January, 1908, p. ^y^y and that it is His "glori- 
fied Body in Heaven" which communicants eat and 
drink, does it? No. 

The Church says further, as though Christ were 
speaking to a Protestant before the Judgment-Seat, 
the following: 

The Jews "strove among themselves", as unbelievers always 
have done, "saying. How can this man give us his Aesh to eat!" 
Did I hereupon inform them that it was not MY FLESH that I 
meant to give, but only a figure of my flesh! Or did I confirm 
what I had just before stated? . . . After hearing these 
plain and positive and repeated declarations (John vi. 54-58), the 
Jews could no longer doubt the meaning of my words; but, like 
thee, they would not believe them. Many of my disciples also, 
seeing that I really meant to give them my Hesh indeed to eat 
and my blood indeed to drink, murmured in like manner at my 
words and said, "this is a hard saying; who can hear it?" (The 
Protesting Christian Standing Before The Judgment-Seat of 
Christ, to Answer For The Protest against That Parent Church 
Which Christ Built Upon a Rock, Rev. J, Perry, p. 48). 

And if the Apostles at that time believed the doctrine 
that Christ would literally give them His flesh to eat, when 
and where did they ever change their opinion, and where is 
that important fact recorded? (The Path Which Led a Protes- 
tant Lawyer to the Catholic Church, Peter H. Burnett, Rev. Jas. 
Sullivan, S. J., Editor, p. 30). 

According to the foregoing, Christ must have 
spoken as man in John 6:53-58, spoke in the "obvious 
and literal sense" (The Sacramental Life of The 
Church, p. 86), and must have meant His literal, car- 
nal, human flesh and blood, such as they appeared to 
the Jews and the Apostles "at that time," and as liter- 
al, carnal and human flesh and blood as the flesh and 
blood of any other man is ; for if otherwise, then they 



56 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

would have been "deceived," misled. Such being the 
case, Christ's flesh and blood could not have been or 
possibly be, and He could not have meant, His "glori- 
fied Body in Heaven," that the Jews and the Apostles 
understood they were to eat and drink. For that dis- 
course, as well as the institution of the Lord's Supper, 
took place before "His Resurrection." Therefore, 
Christ either misled them "at that time," or else His 
literal, carnal, human flesh and blood, though veiled 
under the "species" of bread and wine, are received 
in Catholic Communion, and would plainly be seen to 
be such could one see them with the natural eyes. 
Such being the case, then is it not still a rank species 
of cannibalism to receive Catholic Communion? 

Again, when Christ is adored in the Eucharist, 
must not the worshiper represent to himself Christ 
as being the same as He was when on earth? If so,. 
and this Eucharistic Christ-God, or "God-man," is 
eaten in Communion, then is it not still after the 
manner of cannibalism to eat Him in Communion? 
Yes. At least it would be such could one see Him in 
the Eucharist as a priest did when he distributed 
Communion, as may be seen by the following: 

"When I distribute holy communion," said Father Paul to a 
friend of Oostcamp, "it is the infant Jesus, bodily present, that 
I see in the Host" (Tabernacle and Purgatory, September, 1908, 
p. 86). 

Here Christ is an infant, while "at that time" He 
was fullgrown, as also His "glorified Body in Heaven" 
must be. That does not dovetail, does it? If after 
all, then, one is not to have a "carnal," literal con- 
ception of the person of Christ-God, through the eyes 
of faith, when supposedly receiving Him in Com- 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 57 

munion, then it would have to be a "mystical" one. 
And is that not about the same as receiving Him by 
faith, just as would be the case in the following? 

The evening before (Communion), beg of Mary to come and 
take possession of your heart, in order to prepare it better for 
the coming of her Son (Frequent and Daily Communion, Father 
J. Lintelo, S. J., pp. 49, 50). 

Through the medium of what matter or "species** 
is she to "take possession of your heart?" Why, 
none. Is it not by faith? If so, then why not go a 
step further and also receive Christ scripturally by 
faith (Gal. 3:2), without the reception of anything 
material, the Eucharist, being that He must go from 
the mouth to the heart of the communicant with- 
out the medium of the Eucharist, anyway; for the 
Eucharist goes into the stomach, not into the heart. 
He would then, by His Spirit, abide with one all the 
time, until one chased "Him away by sin," and not 
only monthly, quarterly or yearly abide with one for 
about "as much as a quarter of an hour after re- 
ceiving" (How to Become a Catholic, Rev. George M. 
Searle, p. 85), when He withdraws His presence 
"because of the digestion" and destruction by "natural 
heat," as we saw, of the "material appearances" of 
bread and wine. And here is the scriptural way, and 
a comprehensible way, of receiving Christ's Spirit, and 
having Him abide with us all the time, or till we 
"chased Him away by sin:" 

That he would grant you, according to the riches of his 
glory, to be strengthened by. his Spirit with might unto the in- 
ward man, that Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts (Eph. 
3:16, 17). 

(That is different from that of dwelling in our 
hearts by the Eucharist, is it not?) 



58 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that 
the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the 
Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Rom. 8:9). 

Would about a "quarter of an hour's" Eucharistic 
presence of Christ in one once a month, or quarterly, 
or yearly, make one have "the Spirit of Christ," accord- 
ing to the above? No. To receive the Eucharist, 
then, in order to have "the Spirit of Christ," is not 
the scriptural way to have it, is it? No. 

Try your ownselves if you be in the faith; prove ye your- 
selves. Know you noit your ownselves, that Christ Jesus is 
in you, unless perhaps you be reprobates (2 Cor. 13:3)? 

According to that, those who do not sin, are not 
"reprobates," have Christ, that is, His Spirit, always 
in them. Communion or no Communion of a Eucharist, 
do they not? Yes. And if so, then can they receive 
Christ under the veil of the Eucharist when He is 
already in them, that is, present by His omnipresent 
and universal spirit? 

If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father 
will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode 
with him (John 14:23). 

According to that, Christ and the Father do not 
abide by the medium of the Eucharist with those who 
keep His word and love Him ; for the Eucharist remains 
but about fifteen minutes, when it "ceases because of 
digestion," and surely a fifteen minutes' presence with 
one can hardly be called an abiding. 

And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of His 
Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father (Gal. 4:6). 

My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ 
be formed in you (Gal. 4:19). 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 59 

Do we receive "the Spirit of His Son" and have 
Him "formed in us," by supposedly receiving Him 
in a Eucharistic Communion? No; but all those 
operations are by faith, mental acts of the mind and 
will, without material aids of any kind, a mouth-eating 
act, receiving Communion. Besides, a presence of 
Christ for about fifteen minutes in Communion re- 
ceived but once a month, or quarterly, or yearly, and 
that an "inanimate" Christ, would never form Him, 
that is. His spirit and character, in anyone. For in 
order to have anything "formed in us" it requires 
about a continuous thought or consciousness of the 
thing to be formed in us. Therefore, if Christ is to 
be formed in us, we must have a continuous conscious- 
ness of His presence, which, of course, can not be had 
through the Eucharist received in Communion, if His 
presence ceases with the digestion of the Eucharist, 
or when it is destroyed by "natural heat." 

And he that keepeth His commandments, abideth in Him, 
and He in him. And in this we know that He abideth in us, 
by the Spirit which He hath given us (1 John 3:24). 

If we love one another, God abideth in us, and His charity 
is perfected in us. . . . And he that abideth in charity, 
abideth in God, and God in him (John 4: 12, 16). 

According to that, God does not give us His Spirit, 
or abide in us, by going to Communion, but gives His 
Spirit to us and "abideth in us" if we keep His com- 
mandments, love one another and abide in charity — 
love. And those things we can do at all times, so 
that "God abideth in us" all the time, "till we chase 
Him away by sin," and not only for the time the 
Eucharist received in Communion has not yet "ceased 
because of digestion" or been destroyed by the 
'^natural heat" of the communicant, which time is 



60 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

about or less "than half an hour after receiving" Com- 
munion. And I suppose the hotter or the stronger 
the "natural heat" the quicker will the "species" be 
destroyed and the quicker will the presence of Christ 
also cease. And God can not "dwell by faith in our 
hearts" (Eph. 3:17) if He leaves as soon as the 
"species" have "ceased because of digestion," and it is 
only through the presence of the Eucharist in one that 
one can have His presence, can He? No. The doc- 
trine of the Real Presence, then, is unscriptural and 
must be an error. 

By the few texts quoted, it may also be seen that 
Christ did not mean literal flesh and blood in John 6th, 
but "spirit and life." For they speak of the "Spirit 
of Christ," which is to be formed and dwell in us. 
And it is formed in us by a mental operation, not a 
mouth-eating one; for it says it dwells "by faith in 
our hearts," and the exercising of faith is a mental 
operation, an act of the mind and will. And words 
of faith are as an alkaloid on the mind and heart, and, 
if one wills to, they will transform one from carnality 
to spirituality, make one have and live at all times 
the "spirit and life" of Christ. And when such is the 
case, then it can be said, as St, Paul said: 

And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me (Gal. 2:20). 

In view, then, of all that we have noted it may 
easily be seen that to receive Communion in order to 
have the Spirit of Christ, or to put on His Spirit, "put 
on Christ," is not the scriptural way of accomplishing 
them, and that the doctrine of the Real Presence must 
then be an error, must it not? 

Of course, all that we have noted, especially which 
Christ-God one should adore and worship, the one 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 61 

supposedly within us when we communicate, or the 
one still supposedly upon the altar; about God being 
in the stomach of the communicant; about who or 
what mutilates and mangles the "living God/' and 
about its being cannibalism to communicate were 
there a Real Presence of God in the Eucharist, are 
things the unthinking, or those who have their minds 
much occupied with work and business, do not think 
about or ask themselves. For if they did they would 
readily perceive the great, very great error of the 
doctrine in question. 

To make the error more apparent and to impress 
it the more deeply upon the mind of the reader, or 
upon the mind of a communicant, I will make a quota- 
tion in which the word "it" is the pronoun of the 
words "Communion," "Blessed Sacrament," etc. I will 
substitute for that pronoun the word God, in italics, 
which the Communion, Blessed Sacrament, etc., really 
are were there a Real Presence in the Eucharist. In 
doing so I do it with all reverence, simply speaking 
plainly by calling, as it were, a spade a spade. Did I 
make the quotation the way I will here for any other 
reason than that mentioned it certainly would be 
blasphemous, highly irreverent and sacrilegious, and 
it is too serious and sacred a thing to Catholics to 
make light of. The following I will quote in which 
the words Communion, it, etc., enclosed in parenthesis, 
are the originals for which I will substitute the word 
God by inserting it after the words in parenthesis, 
such enclosed words not to be read, but reading instead 
into the sentences the word God: 

It is very difficult for the priest to give Communion to 
people holding their mouths nearly shut without striking (it) 
God against their teeth, in which case it is very probable that 



62 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 

(it) God may be broken, or at any rate that some particle of 
(it) God may be knocked off. Don't follow their bad example 
then, but hold your mouth wide open, and your tongue well out; 
then the priest can lay (the Communion) God on it without fear, 
and without danger of accident. When (it) God is laid on your 
tongue, withdraw your tongue immediately, and then close your 
mouth, being careful not to do so till the tongue is inside; then 
swallow (it) God as soon as possible. (It) God must not be 
allowed to melt in the mouth; if (it) God does, you do not re- 
ceive the Sacrament at all. If, however (it) God should adhere 
to the roof of the mouth, so that (it) God cannot immediately 
be swallowed, do not be disturbed, but loosen (it) God with the 
tongue; you will pretty certainly be able to do this before (it) 
God is all dissolved. Do not on any account, touch (it) God 
with your fingers. And take care not to chew (it) God, or even 
touch (it) God with your teeth. Having swallowed (it) God 
safely, you have now received; and now is the time, more than 
any other, for fervent prayer, when the Real Presence of our 
Lord is with you. This Real Presence only remains while (the 
Blessed Sacrament) God still continues undestroyed, which will 
only be for a few minutes at most, for (it) God will usually be 
acted on more quickly by the stomach than by the mouth; but 
even after (it) God has passed away, prayer and thanksgiving^ 
for what has been received should be continued for some time 
... At any rate, one should remain in devotion, if possible, 
for as much as a quarter of an hour after receiving (How to 
Become a Catholic, Rev. George M. Searle, pp. 83-85). 

By that it may be seen that if God does not go 
into the stomach, but remains in the mouth, one does 
"not receive the Sacrament" — God. For if God went 
to one's heart as soon as the Host is received in the 
mouth, then what difference should that make to God 
whether the Host remained in the mouth or was 
swallowed and went into the stomach? Surely, then, 
God must go into the communicant's stomach, be 
"corporally" present in it. Shocking ! shocking ! shock- 
ing if such were the case, is it not? 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 63 

That the way I made the foregoing quotation is 
not a misrepresentation of the real teachings of the 
Church may be known by what we have already seen 
and may further be seen by the following: 

Our Lord Himself has rested upon your tongue in Holy 
Communion (The Catholic News, August 22, 1900). 

He comes to us (in Communion) as the very food of our 
souls; enters our mouths, rests on our tongues, dwells in our 
hearts (The Sacramental Life of The Church, Rev. Otten, pp. 
118, 119) — or rather, dwells in our stomachs, if the Sacrament is. 
not received if the Host is not swallowed. 

It is, then, not a misrepresentation of facts, is it, to 
substitute for the words "the Communion," "Blessed 
Sacrament," etc., the word God the way I did in the 
foregoing quotation, which is an instruction to a con- 
vert to Catholicity as to what to do when receiving 
Communion; that is, eating and digesting, as it were, 
God? And is that not really the case if the com- 
municant "feeds upon the blessed body of Jesus" — 
God, so that then "the blood of a God flows in his 
veins," and He unites "Himself to us in the Eucharist, 
unto forming with us one and a same body and a same 
blood" (Sentinel of The Blessed Sacrament, August, 
1908, p. 251), by saying that to receive Communion 
is to eat and digest God? 

I will add a little more, so that the absurdity and 
erroneousness of the doctrine of the Real Presence 
may be brought home more closely to the reader, or 
to a Catholic. Instead of saying, for instance, "I am 
going to Communion to-day," say, "I am going to 
eat God to-day." Or, instead of saying, "The children 
will make their first Communion to-morrow," say, 
"The children will eat God for the first time to-mor- 



€4 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

row." And is that not really the case, in view of what 
we have seen? Yes. 

In view, then, of all the difficulties, contradictions 
and absurdities that we noted, which would confront 
us were the doctrine of the Real Presence true, and 
which will present themselves to anyone who will 
stop for a moment to think, or "digs a litle deeper," 
then the only way out of those difficulties, contra- 
dictions and absurdities, or to make them vanish, is 
to interpret John 6th in the spiritual sense, making 
it a mental precept of the mind and will, and not a 
mouth-eating act, and use the word "is" in "This 
is My body ; this is My blood," in the sense that "is" 
stands for or means 'signifies" or represents ; just as 
that word does in "this is Mary Jones ; this is John 
Smith," etc., when pointing to their pictures. That 
is without the least shadow of doubt or question the 
way Christ meant it, and it is the only way and sense 
in which the word "is" can be used in the matter in 
question. Christ simply said of the bread and wine 
that He used in instituting a memorial of remem- 
brance, "This is My body; this is My blood," in 
order to impress upon His followers the sacredness 
of His memorial by which He was to be remembered, 
"until He come." 

But, says the Church: 

We might take the words, "This is my body", to mean the 
same as "This is Mary Jones", when said of her picture ; but we 
could not take the words "Hoc est corpus meum", of the Latin 
version, or "Touto estin to soma mou", of the Greek version, 
which is the original, in the same sense, for the reason that in 
those languages the pronoun this has different forms for the 
various genders, and if the word for this applied to the bread, in- 
stead of to the body, it would be represented by hie in Latin and 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 65 

by houtos in Greek. Cf. July Truth, pp. 68-82 (Truth, February, 
1908, p. 264). 

In Latin and Greek the pronouns have separate forms for 
masculine, feminine, and neuter, corresponding to he, she, it. 
Por the pronoun "this", the forms are hie, hasc, hoc in Latin 
and outos, oute, touto in Greek. . , . Now the words for 
bread in both these languages are masculine, panis in Latin and 
artos in Greek. In both languages, then, they could be repre- 
sented only by a mascuHne form of the pronoun, "this;" Hie 
in Latin, outos in Greek. Both the pronouns actually used, how- 
ever, are neuter, Hoc in Latin, touto in Greek. In both lan- 
guages the word for body is also neuter, corpus in Latin, soma in 
Greek. The pronoun can therefore represent only the word body. 
Our Lord's words then become equivalent, not to "This bread is 
my body", but to "This body is mine" . . . Since Christ is 
God, His words, being the words of Omnipotence, effect what 
they signify, and that when He said, "This is my body". His 
Almighty word effected what He said. In fact, these very words 
of our blessed Lord are the strongest proof that one could de- 
sire that He meant them in a literal and not a figurative sense. 
For in using just these words, He speaks of that which He 
holds in His hands, not as of bread, but as of His very body 
(Truth, July, 1907, p. 78). 

If we follow the same rule of interpretation at 
the institution of the Lord's Supper that the (Thurch 
did in Matt. 9:6, then Christ spoke only as man, "not 
in heaven, but here upon earth," when He said : "This 
is my body; this is my blood." For at the institution 
of the Lord's Supper He did not say : "The Son of God 
indeed goeth as it is written of Him," but said : "The 
Son of Man indeed goeth as it is written of Him" 
(Matt. 26:24). Now, if when Christ forgave the man, 
sick of the palsy, "as man, not in heaven, but here upon 
earth," because He spoke of Himself on that occasion 
as "the Son of Man," then did He not also, when He 
said: "This is my body; this is my blood," speak as 
man, "not in heaven, but here on earth," because at 



66 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

the institution of His memorial He spoke of Himself 
as "the Son of Man ?" If so, then how is His supposed 
flesh and blood that of the flesh and blood of God? 
Besides, in John 6:54 He also spoke of Himself as 
"the Son of Man." How, then, does that agree with 
the claims of the Church that when he said: *'This 
is my body; this is my blood," they were the words 
of Omnipotence," God? They do not agree at 
all. Either, then, when Christ forgave the man sick 
of the palsy He forgave Him as God, and that, then^ 
only God, and no priest, can forgive sin, or else at 
the institution of the Lord's Supper He spoke simply 
as man when He said: "This is my body; this is 
my blood," and that, then, His words were not "the 
words of Omnipotence." Now which horn of the 
dilemma will the Church take? But be that as it may, 
it makes no difference anyway in the matter in ques- 
tion, the words of institution. Now I do not under- 
stand the Latin or the Greek language, but it seems 
it makes no difference whether Christ said: "This 
is my body," or "This body is mine," or "This my 
body," just as it makes no material dift'erence whether 
one says of a picture, "this is Mary Jones," or "this 
face is Mary Jones." For that is said not of the ma- 
terial composing the picture, but of the representation 
or likeness. It was the same with Christ when He 
said: "This is my body," or "This body is mine," or 
"This my body; this my blood" (A History of The 
Mass, Rev. O'Brien, p. 327), it merely signified or 
represented His body and blood given for us, His 
death on the cross, which was to be remembered when 
partaking of the memorial He instituted for that pur- 
pose, the Lord's Supper, which would "show forth 
His death until He come" (i Cor. 11:26). To give it 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 67 

any other meaning or admit there is a Real Presence 
of Christ in the Eucharist, or bread and wine, would be, 
as we saw, absurd, lead to no end of difficulties and 
contradictions, and to an unscriptural way of how to 
secure or have the continuous abiding presence of Christ 
and having Him, that is His spirit, life and character, 
"formed in us." 

But now it may be asked, if the Eucharist does 
not contain the body and blood of Christ, and the 
bread and wine are only as so much blessed bread 
and wine, such as Christ used at the Last Supper, a 
mere memorial that shows forth the death of the 
Lord, "until He come," then how can anyone be — 

Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eat and drink 
judgment to himself (1 Cor. 11 : 27-31), 

by unworthily partaking of the Lord's Supper? He 
does that who has not proved himself worthy by a 
Christlike life — not, as the Church teaches, by going to 
Confession — to partake of the Lord's Supper with 
those who by a Christ-like life have proved themselves 
worthy to partake of it, and who are spoken of as 
"you are the body of Christ" — the Lord (i Cor. 12:27), 
and which the unworthy do not discern as a memorial 
for the worthy only. 

There are many who bring condemnation or "judg- 
ment to themselves," in church by its true members — 
the body of the Lord (Eph. 1:22, 23), by partaking 
of the Lord's Supper, though it consists only of bles- 
sed bread and wine, for their hypocritical lives and 
professions of piety and religion, while at the same 
time they are anything but Christ-like in charity, pa- 
tience, honesty, sobriety, etc. When such partake, as 
some do, of the Lord's Supper they bring "judgment 



68 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

to themselves" from those who are really and truly 
Christ-like. For those who know of their un-Christian 
life and conduct, which they do not seem to amend, 
or care very much to amend, could say this of them 
when they partook of the Lord's Supper : 

Oh, you hypocrites! You would partake of the Lord's Sup- 
per, yet you would not be His disciple in deeds and in "spirit 
and life" (John 6:64)! 

Would that not be a condemnation of such? Yes. 
By that it may be seen, then, how some bring "judg- 
ment to themselves" by partaking of the Lord's Sup- 
per, and it may easily be seen how any could be 
"guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" and bring 
"judgment to themselves" by unworthily partaking 
of the Lord's Supper, even though there is no Real 
Presence of Christ in the bread and wine used; just 
as those "crucifying again to themselves the Son of 
God" (Heb. 6:6) really do not literally crucify Him 
again. The texts in question, then, do not support 
the doctrine of the Real Presence, do they? 

It may now also be said that Christ said (John 
6:54, 55) that we must eat His flesh, and drink His 
blood if we want everlasting life, and how can we 
comply with that precept if there is no literal flesh 
and blood of Christ of which to partake? Well, that 
is simply a sensuous or carnal apprehension of what 
Christ said and meant, and as wrongly understood 
by the Jews, who had a sensuous and material view 
of religion, and who on that account nearly always 
misunderstood the prophecies pertaining to the "prom- 
ised Son of David," and of the sayings of Christ. For 
He did not mean that we should literally eat and 
drink His literal flesh and blood, but to put on His 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 69 

''spirit and life," just as it did not mean that Ezechiel 
(Eze. 3:1), and St. John (Apoc. 10:9), should each 
literally "eat the book" by literally eating, chewing 
and swallowing its leaves and covers; or, just as it 
does not mean that one should literally eat a Bible 
by eating, chewing and swallowing its leaves and 
covers in order to "taste the good word of God" (Heb. 
6:5) ; although the Church would have us believe that 
we must literally eat Christ in order to "Taste and 
see that the Lord is sweet" (Benedictine Parish 
Monthly, December, 1909, p. 6, etc.). 

In an annotation to Eze. 3:1, in her Bible, the 
Church says: 

By this eating of the book was signified the diligent attention 
and affection with which we are to receive and embrace the word 
of God. 

Now if to "eat this book," in which no "idea could 
be expressed in clearer terms than these" (The Faith 
of Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons, p. 332) : "Eat this 
book," does not mean to literally eat a book, but 
means "the diligent attention and affection with which 
we are to receive and embrace the word of God," 
then how does one do that? Does one not do so 
through the mind and will? Yes. Well, it is the 
same with to "eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and 
drink His blood," that is, eat and drink His "spirit 
and life." It means to imbibe and assimilate Christ's 
spirit and life, not by literally eating and drinking 
in a cannibalistic way the supposed flesh and blood 
of Christ, but to put Him on, His spirit and life, 
through an act of the mind and will, without putting 
anything of material from into the mouth ; just as one 
through the mind and will, without putting anything 



70 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

of material form into the mouth, "receives and em- 
braces the word of God/' or as one would "eat and 
drink wisdom" (Ecclus. 24:29), or "eat and drink 
justice" (Matt. 5:6), if one "hungered and thirsted" 
for them. And is that not reasonable, comprehensible 
and the true way to put on the spirit and life of 
anyone, be it that of Christ or of anyone else? Such 
being the case, then how would you put on the "spirit 
and life" of Christ; that is, scripturally "eat the flesh 
of the Son of Man, and drink His blood" (John 6:54), 
which He later explained to His disciples meant 
"spirit and life?" How would you, for instance, put 
on the "spirit and life" of Father Damien, Abraham 
Lincoln or some Saint? Would you make some eata- 
ble representation of him, eat it and then believe by 
doing so you had put on his spirit and life? No; but 
you would get a history of his life, containing a de- 
scription of his spirit, giving his rules of conduct and 
a narration of the deeds he had done, and do as he 
did, would you not? Yes. Well, it is the same with 
putting on the "spirit and life" of Christ. It is to 
hear or read of them, imbibe them and imitate them 
through the mind and will — I will be like Christ in spirit 
and life. 

That is what it means to "eat the flesh of the Son 
of Man, and drink His blood," and that can be done 
without partaking of any "species" in a cannibalistic 
way, mouth-eating way. 

Had Christ not spoken m figures and parables, as 
He usually did to other than His disciples, and had 
used modern-day language. He would have spoken 
about as follows: 

Except you assimilate with the mind and will the spirit and 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 71 

life of the Son of Man, and go about doing good, you shall not 
have everlasting life, or, 

He that puts on My spirit through the mind, and followeth 
My life by an act of the will, and goes about doing good, shall 
have everlasting life. 

That is what Christ meant when He said we 
must eat His flesh and drink His blood, if we want 
everlasting life. And to do that is a process of the 
mind and will, entirely independent of that of put- 
ting anything into the mouth and literally eating and 
swallowing it, so that it goes into the stomach and 
remains there till the "natural heat" has destroyed 
its appearances. And is that not the "key" that en- 
ables one to easily understand what Christ meant by 
John 6:52-64? 

It may be objected here that if Christ meant what 
I just said He did, then why did He not say so in the 
plain terms and way I did? To that it might be re- 
plied by asking, Why were not the prophecies per- 
taining to the promised Messiah given in plain literal 
words, so that the Jews might have understood them, 
and said that He would be a spiritual King, who would 
reign by His Spirit in the hearts of the people, as now 
understood by most of the churches? Or, why did 
He not tell St. John to "read the book," instead of 
telling him to "eat it up," if He meant St. John was 
not to eat literally the book, but was to read it? 

We have to use some reason and common sense 
in interpreting some passages of Scripture, and John 
6:52-64 and Apoc. 10:9 are some of those passages. 
And reason and common sense tell us that the soul 
must be reached, fed and nourished through the mind, 
the assimilating organ of the soul, which receives its 
food or data through the channels of either hearing 



72 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

or seeing or both( Gal. 3:2). When that is once seen 
and understood then the fallacy and utter futility may 
be seen of trying to feed, nourish and strengthen the 
soul, or putting on the spirit and life of anyone, 
through putting certain blessed things into the mouth 
and swallowing them^ or through putting them on 
the external body. To feed the body one must put 
natural food, through the avenue of the mouth, into 
the stomach, the receiving and assimilating organ of 
the body. Likewise, then, to feed the soul one must 
put spiritual food, words of faith and truth, the "bread 
of life," into the assimilating organ of the soul, which 
is the mind, understanding, and which receives its 
food through the channel of either the eye or the ear, 
by either reading or hearing the Gospel and spirit and 
life of Christ, and then assimilating them through an 
operation of the mind and following them by an act 
of the will. It is the word that reaches the soul, cuts 
to the quick, cuts deeper than the sword; that is, 
material forces or blows upon the external body. The 
same is it with "eating" words of faith and truth and 
with putting on the spirit and life of Christ, acquiring 
grace or administering it (Eph. 4:29; i Pet. 4:10, ii; 
2 Cor. 3:3, 6). And were not that the operation and 
meaning when Christ said we must eat and drink His 
flesh and blood, in order to obtain everlasting life, 
"enter into the kingdom of God," then what becomes 
of those good Catholic children who die without ever 
receiving Communion? For the Church does not 
permit children in this country under twelve (12) 
years of age to receive Communion, and it makes no 
difference if a child is bright and even in the sixth 
grade in the school, and though eleven (11) years and 
nine (9) months old when a class makes its First Com- 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 73. 

munion, of which I know of such cases, it cannot 
make its first Communion so long as it has not reached 
the full age of twelve years.* 

Of course, that is one of the laws of the Church 
by which she manages to keep the children in her 
parish or parochial schools as long as possible and 
while the mind of the child is still flexible or pliable 
and in the indelibly impressive and formative period, 
the period during which a belief when once impressed 
upon the mind it becomes almost indelibly stamped 
upon it and can then only be eradicated by a severe 
shock of one kind or another upon the mind, as was 
the case with me when I became afflicted and the 
occasion for reading much for pastime was made. 

But be that as it may, if the precept of John 6 154, 
which says : 

Amen, amen, I say to you: Except you eat the flesh of the 
son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you„ 

is a positive precept and were interpreted literally in 
every way as the Church interprets John 3 :5, which 
says : 

Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of 
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God, 

and which the Church interprets to mean a baptism 
by water that is indispensable even to the salva- 
tion of — 

The infant a day old, as well as for the adult (The Faith of 
Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, p. 305), 

then all children, no matter how good they may be, 
who die under twelve years of age, and who had not 



* See Appendix. 



74 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

been permitted by the Church to make their first Com- 
munion, could not enter into the kingdom of God, 
could not obtain everlasting life, would not be "raised 
up in the last day," just as children dying under 
twelve years of age without Baptism, no matter how 
good they might have been, cannot supposedly enter 
into the kingdom of God, have everlasting life, be 
"raised up in the last day." For the precept of John 
6:54, 55 is just as positive a one as John 3:5, both 
having been given and enjoined with an exactly similar 
oath, and neither one has a provision stating that the 
one may be dispensed with if the other is received. 
In view of that, then, if Baptism is indispensable to 
the salvation of infants then Communion must also 
be, must it not? Yes. What, then, becomes of those 
children who die, for instance, between the ages of 
seven and twelve years, who die without ever having 
received Communion, having literally complied with 
the precept of John 6:54, 55, because the Church does 
not permit them to receive Communion, and if to 
literally "eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink 
His blood," is a positive precept that without a literal 
compliance with it no one shall "have life in him/' 
obtain "everlasting life," "enter into the kingdom of 
God," be "raised up in the last day"? Ask a Catholic 
cleric for an answer to that question and he will proba- 
bly reply by saying: 

Pray, sir, which was the first, the chicken or the egg? 

Yet St. Paul said: 

Understand what I say; for the Lord will give thee in all 
things understanding (2 Tim. 2:7), 

As that certainly does not have reference to ma- 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 75 

terial, but to spiritual, things, then have clerics, who 
are supposed to "feed us with knowledge" (Jer. 3:15), 
"understanding," when they reply to legitimate spirit- 
ual questions by saying: "Pray sir, which was the 
first, the chicken or the egg^" 

And how are we fed "with knowledge?" Is it by 
putting certain things into the mouth, as Catholics do 
when they "feed upon the blessed body of Jesus," in 
order to "have everlasting life," put on the spirit and 
life of Christ? 

But be that as it may, probably it will be said, as 
Truth said when speaking of what Pope Leo XIII 
said about those who alone can "fulfill the duties of 
a Christian life," that Christ had in mind, in John 6 154, 
55, only those who have "arrived at or near adult age," 
and that the precept did not include infants. For Truth 
said: 

To the objection he bases upon the quotation from Pope 
Leo XIII, "He alone is able to fulfill the duties of a Christian 
life", we reply that they apply only to those called upon actually 
to "fulfill the duties", among which are only included in the 
Pope's mind, and in the mind of all others when speaking on 
such subjects, those arrived at or near adult age (Truth, Feb- 
ruary, 1908, p. 264). 

Are only "those arrived at or near adult age" re- 
quired to "fulfill the duties of a Christian life" of 
obedience, patience, labor, kindness, forgiveness, re- 
sisting temptation, etc.? Are not children of the age 
of reason and accountability, that is, from about seven 
to twelve years of age, required to "fulfill the duties 
of a Christian life" of about the same kind, with a 
few minor exceptions? Yes. If, then, the Pope had 
in mind only "those arrived at or near adult age" 
when he said that — 



76 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

He alone is able to fulfill the duties of a Christian life who 
has put on Christ, and Christ is not put on except by the fre- 
quentation of the Eucharistic table (Quoted in Catholic News, 
April 4, 1900), 

then why may not Christ also have had in mind only 
"those arrived at or near adult age" when He said ? 

Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he 
cannot see the kingdom of God. . . . The spirit breatheth 
where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not 
whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; so is every one that 
is born of the Spirit (John 3:3, 8). 

Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every 
creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but 
he that believeth not shall be condemned (Mark 16:15, 16). 

if Christ had in mind only "those arrived at or near 
adult age," twelve years of age, or over twelve, when 
He said: 

Amen, amen, I say to you: Except you eat the flesh of the 
son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath ever- 
lasting life : and I will raise him up in the last day (John 6 : 54, 
55)?— (He that eateth NOT my flesh, and drinketh NOT my 
blood, hath NOT everlasting life: and I will NOT raise him 
up in the last day). 

This is what the Church says about Baptism : 

The Church teaches that Baptism is necessary for all, for 
infants as well as for adults, and her doctrine rests on the fol- 
lowing grounds: Our Lord says to Nicodemus: (Here quotes 
John 3:5). These words embrace the whole human family, 
without regard to age or sex (The Faith of Our Fathers, James 
Cardinal Gibbons, p. 307). 

Now if unconscious infants regardless of "age or 
sex," who do not know of anything but a few neces- 
sary instincts, and who cannot "hear His (Holy 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 17 

Spirit's) voice," and who cannot choose to believe or 
not to believe, were "included in Christ's mind" when 
He spoke as in John 3:5, 8 and Mark 16:15, 16, then 
why were not such infants also "included in Christ's 
mind" when He spoke as in John 6:54, 55? Can an 
infant about ten days old hear the voice of the Spirit, 
when it cannot even hear or understand the voice of 
a human being? No. Why, then, is it baptized but 
not given Communion, even sometimes being baptized 
when it is only a few hours old and it is believed it 
will not live? Where is the authority for administer- 
ing the one and not the other to infants? One could 
with as much right say the following about the neces- 
sity of Communion for infants, as the Church says 
about the necessity of Baptism for infants: 

Communion is necessary for all, for infants as well as for 
adults and the doctrine rests on the following grounds: Our 
Lord says to the Jews : "If any man eat of this bread, he shall 
live forever. Except you eat the flesh of the son of man, and 
drink his blood, you shall not have life in^ou. These words 
embrace the whole human family, without regard to age or sex. 

1 Now, in view of that, where is the "warrant of 
Scripture" for administering Baptism, but not Com- 
munion, to infants, "without regard to age or sex?" 
The Church can always cite scriptural warrant for 
doing or for not doing a certain thing. Where, then, 
is the "warrant of Scripture," and the rule of inter- 
pretation, for administering Baptism, but not Com- 
munion, to infants and children, if both precepts are 
to be interpreted literally? The Church cannot cite 
Matt. 16:19; for then she could with as much right 
and authority abolish infant Baptism. The Church 
says further: 



78 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Our Lord knows equally, and far better than we do, that 
innocence is the most precious of all treasures, that Satan seeks 
to rob children of it early, and that Communion alone can pro- 
tect them from the wiles of the enemy — Mgr. de Segur (Mes- 
senger of the Sacred Heart, July, 1909, p. 401). 

Then Jesus said to them : "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless 
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you 
shall not have life in you". You shall never be saved, you shall 
never see eternal life (Transubstantiation, Rev. Father Damen, 
p. 7). 

As children, according to the Church, can at about 
the age of seven years commit mortal sins, be robbed 
of their innocence by Satan, and if "Communion alone 
can protect" innocent children "from the wiles of the 
enemy," Satan, and without Communion "you shall 
never be saved, you shall never see eternal life," then 
why is Communion not now given to children as it 
was "in the primitive days of the Church?" Was it 
believed "in the primitive days" that without Com- 
munion infants, children, would "never be saved, never 
see eternal life," but now they will without it? If 
so, then has the Church not changed? It cannot be 
claimed that the administering of Communion to in- 
fants, and its abolition later, was and is "only a mat- 
ter of discipline," and that Matt. 16:19 is the authority 
for the Church's action. For then the administering 
of Baptism to infants could also be said to be "only 
a matter of discipline," and could at any time be 
abolished without affecting the salvation of infants and 
children under twelve years of age. For the Scripture 
precepts for the administering of Communion to in- 
fants are just as strong as those for administering 
Baptism to them. So that, then, if one is "only a 
matter of discipline," the other is also "only a matter 
of discipline." Such being the case, then why does 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC n 

the Church not administer Communion to infants, or 
else also discontinue administering Baptism to them, 
and not administer it to them until they are able to 
believe, if they must be old enough to "discern the 
body of the Lord" before Communion can be ad- 
ministered to them now? 

But it may be said, as one wrote me: 

Those are not to commune who are not capable of discern- 
ing the body of the Lord, hence the exclusion of children. 

If such is the case, then it may with just as much 
justification be said: 

Those are not to be baptized who are not capable of hearing 
the voice of the Spirit (John 3:8) and of believing (Mark 
16:16). 

Are ten-day-old infants capable of those two things, 
being that the Church usually baptizes them at or 
about that age? No. The argument, then, for the 
reason for the "exclusion of children" from Com- 
munion is not tenable, for the same kind of argument 
would also exclude children from Baptism. 

Again, if "those are not to Commune who are not 
capable of discerning the body of the Lord" then why 
did the Church communicate children in the "primitive 
days of the Church?" 

In the primitive days of the Church, the Holy Communion 
used to be imparted to infants, but only in the form of wine. 
The priest dipped his finger in the consecrated chalice, and 
gave it to be sucked by the infant (The Faith of Our Fathers, 
James Cardinal Gibbons, p. 347). 

For a long time it was customary to communicate children, 
under the species of wine, immediately after their baptism. This 
used to be done by the priest dipping his finger in the Precious 
Blood and then putting it into the child's mouth to suck (A 
History of the Mass, Rev. John O'Brien, A. M., p. 378). 



80 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Could the infants "in the primitive days of the 
Church" "discern the body of the Lord," but cannot 
do so now when it is claimed that now the intelligence 
of the people and children is above that which it was 
""in the primitive days," because they were given Com- 
munion then, whilst those of the present day are not 
given it? 

Of course, the Church has wrongly interpreted 
what it means to be "born again," just as she has 
wrongly interpreted what it means to "eat the flesh 
of the Son of Man, and drink His blood," and just as 
the Jews wrongly interpreted the prophecies, be- 
lieving — 

The promised Son of David was to be a great temporal 
prince, that He was to free the Jewish people, and establish a 
great Jewish Empire (Notes on Ingersoll, Rev. L. A. Lambert, 
pp. 140, 141), 

and who was to sit upon the literal throne upon which 
David sat. 

The Church says this about Baptism : 

Our Lord here (John iii. 5; Matt, xxviii. 19) makes no 
distinction about who is to be baptized; and the word which He 
tiscs does not simply mean a member of the male sex, but all 
human individuals. Now the size of a person does not constitute 
a man; and as soon as a child has a soul it has human nature. 
They might easily know this from Holy Writ; for it was said 
by Christ that a woman rejoices at the birth of her child because 
a man is born into the world. Here Christ makes no distinction 
of sex or age [neither did He in John vi. 54, 55] which shows 
how He used the word man. But it has been objected to me 
that Christ required faith for baptism, and that a child cannot 
have faith. Of course they wish us to take the assertion for 
proof. Now the child has many faculties which it cannot use 
because they are undeveloped. It has two legs, and cannot walk. 
It has an intelligent soul, and cannot reason. These are powers 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 81 

which God has given it in the natural order, which it is totally 
unable to exercise. But on your theory it cannot receive them. 
Now why cannot God endow that soul with faith as well as 
reason? One is no more difficult than the other. True, its 
faith would have to be developed hereafter, but so must its 
reason, if you do not wish it to grow up an unthinking animal 
(The Question Box, Rev. F. G. Lentz, pp. 118, 119). 

If, then, "Christ makes no distinction of sex or 
age which shows how He used the word man," when 
speaking of the necessity of Baptism, and the soul of 
an infant is endowed "with faith" sufficient to believe 
in Baptism, so as to be baptized, then does not the 
word man in John 6:52 "not simply mean a member 
of the male sex, but all human individuals without 
distinction of sex or age?" If so, and the soul of 
an infant is endowed "with faith" sufficient to receive 
Baptism — which would make it be also endowed "with 
faith" sufficient to receive Communion — then why is 
it not given Communion as well as Baptism, as "in 
the primitive days of the Church?" 

According to the interpretations the Church places 
on John 3:5,8; Mark 16:15, 16 and John 6:54, 55, they 
ought to read as follows: 

Unless a man, from a day old on up, be born again Oi water 
and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. . . . 
The Spirit breatheth where He will; and thou, from a day old 
on up, hearest His voice, etc. 

Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every 
creature from a day old on up. He, from a day old on up, that 
believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he, from a day old 
on up, that believeth not, etc. 

Except you, from twelve years old on up, eat the flesh of 
the son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in 
you. He, from twelve years old on up, that eateth my flesh, and 
drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up 
in the last day. 

6 



82 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

But Christ made no such distinctions, and, as the 
texts stand, one is just as imperative a precept, and 
as indispensable to salvation, as the other. And 
the very arguments that can be adduced for the ad- 
ministering of infant Baptism can also be adduced in 
favor of infant Communion; and the very arguments 
that can be produced against infant Communion can 
also be produced against infant Baptism. Now, why 
does the Church not administer the one to infants as 
well as the other, as she did "in the primitive days 
of the Church?" It must be because she is changeable 
in her beliefs, teachings and practices, must it not? 
Yes. Yet she claims that she has never changed her 
belief in anything regarded as essential to salvation, 
that she is infallible and that — 

If only one instance could be given in which the Church 
ceased to teach a doctrine of faith which had been previously 
held, that single instance would be the death-blow of her claim of 
infallibility (The Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, 
p. 96). 

Has not "that single instance" been given which 
apparently shows she must at one time have believed 
Communion was indispensable to the salvation of 
infants, because she at one time administered it to 
them, but does not believe so now, because she does 
not administer it to them any longer? If so, then has 
she not "ceased to teach a doctrine of faith which had 
been previously held?" Yes. The Church, then, is 
not unchangeable, and if not unchangeable then she 
is not infallible, is she? Hardly. 

The Church may in reply to that say that it is 
not because she is not unchangeable in her beliefs of 
essential doctrines and rites, that she has ceased to 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 83 

impart Communion to infants, but because of the dan- 
ger of spilling some of the supposed blood of Christ 
in imparting it to them ; as though it could not have 
been spilled "in the primitive days," but can now. 
But such a reply would not hold good in view of the 
following : 

Silence should be observed in the Sacristies; or, at least, we 
should speak in a low voice, because the Sacristy is part of the 
Church, and it might be that our Lord is there really present in 
some small particle of the consecrated Host, adhering to the 
sacred linens (Little Catechism of Liturgy, Rev. A. M. Cheneau, 
p. 17), 

as though the Lord would not want us to speak to 
others in His presence. Will it be the same in 
Heaven? 

If, then, the Lord is "really present in some small 
particle of the consecrated Host," which particle may 
be as small as a pin head, "adhering to the sacred 
linens," which are later soaked in water and washed, 
then is it any more sacrilegious, or whatever it may be 
called, for some small quantity of His "Precious 
Blood" to be spilled upon the face or upon the clothes 
of infants when imparting it to them in Communion 
than to have the Christ "adhering to the sacred linens" 
soaked in the water of a washtub, or in whatever they 
are washed? I do not believe that it is. But it may 
be said Christ withdraws His presence before the 
"sacred linens" are soaked in water. Well, could He 
not do the same from the wine that might be spilled 
in administering Communion to infants? 

Neither can the Church claim that she ceased ad- 
ministering Communion to infants because she has 
made a ruling or regulation that one must now be in- 
structed, must understand what Communion is and 



84 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

must be "capable of discerning the body of the Lord/' 
before one can receive it. For then it might be asked, 
Was not the Church guided by the Holy Spirit "in 
the primitive days," so that she would have known 
that one must be instructed about Communion and 
be "capable of discerning the body of the Lord" be- 
fore one could receive it, or that she did not know 
how to teach salvation and its full requirements, be- 
cause she at that time gave Communion to infants? 

In view, then, of what we have noted, may we not 
reasonably infer that the reason she has ceased to give 
Communion to infants is because she has changed in 
her belief with regard to the necessity of infant Com- 
munion, and has, therefore, also "ceased to teach a 
doctrine of faith which had been previously held?" 
Yes. Has not, then, "that single instance been given," 
which, if it "could be given would be the death-blow 
of her claim of infallibility?" 

The Church has also changed with regard to her 
attitude towards suicides. At one time she would 
under no consideration permit a suicide, to commit 
suicide she then regarded as "a heinous crime" (Fre- 
quent and Daily Communion, Father Lintelo, S. J., p. 
12), to be buried from the Church, while now some are? 
buried with the full funeral rites of the Church. The 
Church, then, is not unchangeable, nor infallible, is 
she? Hardly. 

The Church says the following: 

May the whole church, and each one of the faithful, grow in 
wisdom and knowledge; not altering, but advancing in the same 
doctrine, mind and faith. The doctrine of divine philosophy of 
Christianity may be developed, defined, and perfected, but they 
cannot be altered, diminished, or mutilated without sin. They 
may, indeed, gain additional proof, light, and definiteness. but 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 85 

to do so they must retain their fulness, integrity, and essence — 
Vincent of Lerins (Spiritual Pepper and Salt, Right Rev. Wm. 
Stang, D. D., p. 115). 

If, then, doctrines "cannot be altered, diminished, 
or mutilated," and "they must retain their fulness, 
integrity, and essence," then has the doctrine of infant 
Communion of the "primitive days" not been "altered, 
diminished and mutilated," by not now administering 
Communion to infants? And is it "advancing in the 
same doctrine" to discontinue a practice of the primi- 
tive days of the Church? If so, then why not discon- 
tinue the practice of infant Baptism, and say by doing 
so, the Church is "advancing in the same doctrine, 
mind and faith?" 



CHAPTER IV. 

In order to see what answer the Church would 
make to the question of why Communion, based on 
John 6:54, is not as indispensable to the salvation of 
infants as she regards Baptism to be, and why Com- 
munion was imparted to infants in the primitive days, 
I wrote to Truth about that. It answered as follows, 
which I will quote in sections and comment on as I 
quote them : 

The words in John iii. 5 refer to admission into the king- 
dom of God, that is, the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, 
which is necessary to salvation. Those in John vi. 54 refer to 
the life of grace, and more especially to its preservation in our 
souls. The life of grace is conferred by baptism, and can only 
be lost by mortal sin (Truth, October, 1907, p. 162). 

That the "kingdom of God" does not mean the 
Church may be seen by the following: Matt. 6:33; 
19:24; 21:31; Mark 9:47; 10:14; John 3:3; etc. But 
be that as it may, if Communion is necessary "to its 
preservation in our souls of that life of grace conferred 
by baptism," then should not all baptized children 
between the ages of seven and twelve years, who can 
commit mortal sins at about seven years of age, re- 
ceive Communion for the "preservation in their souls 
of that life of grace conferred by baptism"? And are 
not infants or children to-day, in this age of growing 
indiflferentism and irreligion, in as great need of "addi- 
tional graces" as were the infants of the primitive days 
of the Church? If so, then why does the Church not 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 87 

impart Communion to them now, if she is not change- 
able in her teachings and practices of divine rites? It 
must be because she is apparently changeable. 

Again, if the life of grace is conferred by baptism 
— ^which no doubt means by baptism only — and the 
"life of grace is lost by mortal sin," then why is one 
not re-baptized that one may again receive the life 
of grace? For there is just as much "warrant of Scrip- 
ture" for frequent Baptism as there is for frequent 
Communion, which the Church is now exhorting her 
members to practice; or, there is no more "warrant 
of Scripture" for frequent Communion, so that one 
may "have everlasting life," than there is for frequent 
Baptism. 

Again, what "life" is meant in John 6:54? Is it 
not, in one sense of the word, the "life of grace?" 
Yes. For to have "everlasting life" (John 6:55) one 
must have and die in grace, or state of grace. Such 
being the case, then how did Christ say that "life of 
grace" is received, "conferred?" Did He say, by being 
**born again," being baptized ? No. And in John 3 13-8 
He said nothing about any kind of "life." But He 
said it is obtained, "conferred," by eating and drinking 
the flesh and blood of the Son of Man, which the 
Church has interpreted to mean receiving Communion. 
Now, in view of that, is Truth not mistaken when it 
says the "life of grace is conferred by baptism," and 
that John 6:54 refers "to its preservation in our 
souls?" Yes. And if anything is patent as to where 
and how the "life of grace is conferred" it is by Com- 
munion rather than by Baptism. For Christ said 
nothing about "life" in John 3 13-8, but He did in John 
6 :54. Therefore, if one will not have "everlasting life" 



88 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

unless one has and is in the "life of grace," and this 
"life of grace" is not received, "conferred," 

Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His 
blood (John 6:54). 

then is Communion not necessary for the salvation of 
all, and make it even more necessary than Baptism? 
If so, then why does the Church not administer Com- 
munion to infants now as she did in the "primitive 
days of the Church," so that they may receive the 
"life of grace" that is necessary for the obtaining of 
"everlasting life," and that they may be "raised up 
in the last day?" It must be because she is changea- 
ble, must it not? 

And in view of what we have seen. Communion, 
then, if not more necessary than Baptism for the sal- 
vation of infants, is, at the least, just as necessary 
for their salvation. There is no way to turn and 
twist out of that conclusion if John 6:52-59 is to be 
interpreted in the literal sense, and means a mouth- 
eating and drinking operation, receiving Catholic Com- 
munion. 

There is a vast difference between the meaning of these 
two expressions "to enter into the kingdom of God", and ta 
"have life in you". The one lays down the conditions for "en- 
tering into life", and is, therefore, of universal application, the 
other lays down the condition of continuing in that "life of 
grace", and therefore is not so extensive in application (Ibid.^ 
p. 162). 

By reading the verse following the one containing 
the "expression," "have life in you," which reads as 
follows: 

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath ever- 
lasting life and I will raise him up in the last day (John 6: 55),, 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 89 

it may be seen that there is really no difference be- 
tween their meaning. For if one does not comply with 
the conditions of John 6:54, 55, if taken in the literal 
sense, and as literally as John 3 13, 5, then one will 
not have "everlasting life," and he will NOT be raised 
"up in the last day" to "enter the kingdom of God," 
heaven. It would be the same as with one who did 
not comply with the conditions of John 3 15, he would 
NOT be raised "up in the last day" to "enter the king- 
dom of God," heaven. As the two precepts read, each 
one stands alone. For Christ said nothing about be- 
ing "born again" when He spoke as narrated in John 
6:54, 55; and said nothing about to "eat the flesh of 
the Son of Man" when he spoke as recorded in John 
3:3, 5, 8, so that each stands alone, and one will have 
salvation by complying with either precept, or else 
both are necessary for salvation. There is, then, really 
no difference "between the meaning of these two ex- 
pressions" to "enter into the kingdom of God," or to 
"see the kingdom of God" (John 3 : 3) — which cer- 
tainly does not mean, as Truth claims, "the Church, 
the Mystical Body of Christ," for we can SEE the 
Church even if we do not become members of it by 
not being baptized — and to "have life in you," "ever- 
lasting life." John 6:54 is then just as "universal of 
application" as John 3:5, is it not, when taken in the 
literal sense? Yes. And no doubt that was the view 
of the Church "in the primitive days," and that, then, 
was the reason the Church imparted Communion to 
infants, "but only in the form of wine." The Church, 
then, is changeable, is she not? Yes, most evident- 
ly so. 

Again, the exact force of the "except" in John vi. 54 is 
evident the moment we read it in its context. It was said to 



90 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

the Jews who refused to accept His words literally, and means: 
"If you refuse to eat/* "if you contemn the eating". (Here 
quotes John vi. 53, 54). Our correspondent will also note that in 
the quotation on baptism our Saviour uses the third person, 
"Unless a man" — any one of the human race — which is absolutely 
universal; whereas, in regard to Holy Communion He uses only 
the second person — "Except you shall eat", etc., which is not 
universal absolutely (Ibid., p. 162). 

We will now see whether or not the "person'* 
Christ used in either case really makes any difference 
in the "force of the 'except' in John vi. 54," and of the 
"unless a man" in John 3 15, by changing the "persons" 
in them. 

Except you be bom again of water and the Holy Ghost, you 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). 

Unless a man eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his 
blood, he shall not have life in him (John 6:54). (Which is 
in substance what Christ said in verse 52, where He "uses the 
third person".) 

I will also quote verse 55 in the same way. 

You that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath ever- 
lasting life; and I will raise you up in the last day. 

Now, does the changing of the "persons" in the 
foregoing change the meaning or "universal applica- 
tion" of either of the two precepts in question? No. 
Note also how Christ changed from the "second per- 
son" in verse 54 to the "third person" in verse 55, 
showing that John 6 :54, 55 is as "absolutely universal" 
as Truth claims John 3 :5 is. Christ simply spoke in 
the third person to Nicodemus because it is a more 
feeling or kind way of speaking to a person than to 
speak to one in the "second person," especially when 
speaking to one person only, as was the case with 
Nicodemus. With the Jews however it was different, 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 91 

because He spoke to many instead of to one, using 
the second person as well as the third person in speak- 
ing to them. And had they not striven "among them- 
selves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to 
eat," then Christ would not have given utterance to 
verse 54, which is in the second person, and His whole 
discourse would then have been in the third person. 
For by cutting out verse 54 the whole discourse sup- 
posedly about Communion is in the third person, show- 
ing that Christ then did not "in regard to Holy Com- 
munion use only the second person." Any one who 
cares to go to the trouble to look up that discourse will 
see that such is the case, and he ought not to be blind- 
ed by the statements of Truth that "in regard to Holy 
Communion Christ uses only the second person" and 
"which is not universal absolutely" for all, including 
infants, if John 3:5 is "universal absolutely" for all, 
including infants. 

John 6 :54, 55, then, when taken in the literal sense 
as the Church does John 3:5, is just as "universal 
absolutely" as John 3:5, is it not ? Yes. Why, then, 
does the Church not administer Communion now to 
infants as she did "in the primitive days of the 
Church," when she apparently believed Communion 
was as indispensable to the salvation of infants, by 
administering it to them at that time, as she now 
believes Baptism is? It must be because she appar- 
ently is changeable in her beliefs and teachings and 
practices of divine rites. There is no other way to 
account for it. 

In my letter to Truth I quoted His Eminence, 
Cardinal Gibbons, which is the reason for the follow- 
ing: 



92 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 

Cardinal Gibbons cited the giving of Holy Communion to 
infants under the form of wine only, not as evidence of the 
belief of the primitive days of the Church as to the necessity of 
receiving it, but of the antiquity of the custom of receiving 
under one kind only. The form of wine was given to infants 
for obvious reasons [Is Baptism given to infants now also only 
"for obvious reasons?"]. It was given not from any belief in 
its necessity, but as a means of imparting, additional graces to 
the soul of the infant (Ibid. p. 162). 

As Communion is now given to the laity twelve 
years old and older, "under one kind only," then why 
is it not "imparted to infants, but only in the form 
of wine," as "in the primitive days," if it is "a means 
of imparting additional graces to the soul of the in- 
fant?" Has the human nature of infants changed to 
the better now from that which it was "in the primi- 
tive days of the Church?" No. And if not, then why 
does the Church not now impart Communion to in- 
fants if she has not changed in her belief as to the 
necessity of Communion for the salvation of infants? 

That the Church has changed her belief and teach- 
ing with regard to John 6:54, 55 from that which it 
was apparently "in the primitive days of the Church," 
may be seen by the following: 

St. Innocent I. and St. Gelasius I. [Elected Popes 402 and 
492 A. D.], had both declared as soon as infants were baptized 
the sacrament (of Communion) was necessary to secure them 
eternal life (The Inquisition, Henry C. Lea, Vol. 2, p. 474). 

There are the "obvious reasons" why the Church 
gave Communion to infants "in the primitive days of 
the Church." And it appears that at the times of 
Popes St. Innocent I. and St. Gelasius I. there arose 
the question as to its necessity for infants, that some 
must have been in favor of abolishing it, and that the 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 93 

Popes in question were opposed to its abolition. For 
infant Communion was administered earlier than the 
fifth century, according to the following: 

As early as the middle of the third century, with the advance 
of the sacerdotal theory, confirmation became an exclusive pre- 
rogative of the bishop, in the Western Church. In the East, this 
change did not take place. Infant baptism, infant confirmation, 
and infant communion were associated together. The right to 
confirm remained with the presbyter (History of The Christian 
Church, Fisher, p. 54). 

That even shows that the Church "in the primitive 
days" must have interpreted John 3:5 differently than 
she does now, and believed apparently that to be "born 
again of water and the Holy Ghost" two rites must 
take place at one and the same time, and therefore 
confirmed infants as soon as they were baptized with 
water, so that they would be "born of the Spirit" (John 
3:8), also giving them Communion, by the priest "dip- 
ping his finger in the Precious Blood and then putting 
it into the child's mouth to suck," so that it would 
"have everlasting life, and be raised up in the last 
day," should it die. At the present time the Church 
does not administer Confirmation to any one, as a 
rule, till after one has made the First Communion, 
showing that the Church has "ceased to teach" not 
only one "doctrine of faith which had been previously 
held," but two of them, that of infant Communion 
and infant Confirmation. If she should keep on "ad- 
vancing in the same doctrine" then there is no telling 
how soon she may change her belief with regard to 
the necessity of infant Baptism, and abolish it for 
"obvious reasons," as she did that of infant Com- 
munion and infant Confirmation. Yet she claims she 
has never changed, never will, and that she is infalli- 



94 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

ble. But is she such a Church? No, not by a good 
deal. And has not "that single instance" been given 
"in which the Church ceased to teach a doctrine of 
faith which had been previously held," which, if it 
"could be given," "would be the death-blow of her 
claim of infallibility?" 

Again, where is there any more warrant of Scrip- 
ture" for the reception of Communion more than once, 
so that one may have "everlasting life," than there 
is for the reception of Baptism but once, so that one 
might "see the kingdom of God?" For the Church 
teaches that Baptism can be received but once. 
The Church cannot claim Luke 22:19 or i 
Cor. 1 1 : 26 as "warrants of Scripture" for the recep- 
tion of Communion more than once, so that one may 
have "everlasting life." For those texts exhort the 
commemoration of and show the "death of the Lord, 
until He come," which is quite a different end and 
purpose from that of eating "the flesh of the Son of 
Man," so that one may have "everlasting life." For 
to "eat the flesh of the Son of Man," is something 
that effects for us or results in "everlasting Life," 
while to partake of the Lord's Supper simply shows 
"the death of the Lord, until He come." One has no 
more to do with the other than to be "born again" has 
to do with to "show the death of the Lord, until He 
come," thus showing that they are two quite distinct 
precepts and different in their character, application 
and results, and just as distinct from each other as 
John 3:5 is from Matt. 26:26-29. Luke 22:19 and i 
Cor. II: 26, then, are not "warrants of Scripture" for 
the reception of Communion, eating "the flesh of the 
Son of Man," more than once, so that one may have 
"everlasting life." Where, then, is the "warrant of 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 95 

Scripture" for the reception of Communion, "eat the 
flesh of the Son of Man," more than once, so that 
one may have "everlasting Hfe?" There is none if 
there is none for the reception of Baptism but once, 
so that one may be "born again," receive the Holy 
Ghost, after one has lost the "life of grace" and 
"chased away by sin" the Hcly Ghost. 

But it may be said that "the Eucharist is both a 
sacrament and sacrifice" (Clearing the Way, Rev. 
Xavier Sutton, p. 103), and that therefore John 
6:54-58, Luke 22:19 and i Cor. 11:26 mean one and 
the samf thing, and that, therefore, the latter two pas- 
sages are the "warrants of Sci-ipture" for the recep- 
tion of Communion more than once, or for receiving 
it frequently, so that one may have "everlasting life." 
If that is the case, then every one can offer the sacri- 
fice; for Christ addressed laymen, not clerics, in John 
6:54, 55, and St. Paul likewise addressed laymen, not 
clerics, in i Cor. 1 1 :23-26. But the Church does not 
admit that laymen can offer the sacrifice (The Faith 
of Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons, p. 345), the Mass, 
as the Church calls it, and that only her clerics can 
offer it. Such being the case, then, Luke 22:19 and 
I Cor. II :26 are not "warrants of Scripture" for more 
than once to "eat the flesh of the Son of Man," so 
that one may have "everlasting life," are they? No. 

Again, if Baptism, as we saw, "refers to admis- 
sion into the Church, which is necessary for salvation," 
then how is an apostate, or an excommunicate, who 
certainly is completely outside of the "kingdom of 
God," the Church, who repents and wants to re-enter 
the Church, re-enter the "kingdom of God," the 
Church, without being re-baptized, if Baptism can 
be received but once and it is only by Baptism that 



96 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

anyone can ever be or must be admitted into the 
Church? If Baptism cannot be received but once, in 
order to "enter the kingdom of God, that is, the 
Church," then Communion also cannot be received but 
once, in order to obtain "everlasting life/' For it no 
more says: 

As often as you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink 
His blood, you shall have everlasting life; and I will raise you 
up in the last day, 

than it says : 

As often as you are born again of water and the Holj'- 
Ghost, you shall enter into the kingdom of God, 

'*that is, the Church, the Body of Christ." Where, 
then, is the "warrant of Scripture" for more than once 
to "eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His 
blood," so that one may have "everlasting life," and 
be "raised up in the last day," if there is no "warrant 
of Scripture" that one can be baptized more than 
once, so that one may be "born again" of the Holy 
Ghost, when after the reception of Baptism one has 
"chased Him away by sin and enthroned Satan in 
His place," or when one who is an apostate or has 
been excommunicated, repents and wants to re-enter 
the Church, or has lost "the life of grace by mortal 
sin" — who is certainly spiritually dead and needs to 
be "born again" — and wants to re-gain it, be made 
spiritually alive again? 

The Church claims John 6:54 as the "warrant of 
Scripture" for more than once to "eat the flesh of 
the Son of Man," etc., as may be seen by the following: 

It would be difficult to conceive in what way Rome could 
"have shown greater keenness for the wholesale adoption of 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 97 

this "salutary practice" (of daily Communion), that is to say, 
short of giving a positive command. That, however, it cannot 
do, since it cannot go back of the Divine precept to "eat the flesh 
of the Son of Man and drink His blood", which only binds us 
und^r sin to an annual Communion, and to Viaticum before 
death, if that is feasible — F. D. Zulueta, S. J. (Messenger of 
The Sacred Heart, June, 1909, p. 337). 

If, then, John 6:54 "binds us under sin to to an 
annual Communion" — which is indeed strange the 
Church did not discover that fact till the Fourth Coun- 
cil of Lateran, 121 5 A. D. — and "to Viaticum before 
death, if that is feasible," then the same claim can be 
made for Baptism, according to John 3:5, and one 
should be baptized annually and at the hour of death, 
'*if that is feasible." For whatever interpretation, as 
to how often it may be received, is placed upon John 
6:54 can also be placed upon 3:5, and vice versa. 
Is that not evidently so? Yes. As John 6:54, then, 
is not a "warrant of Scripture," the "Divine precept," 
for receiving Communion more than once, in order 
that one may have "everlasting life," be raised "up in 
the last day," then where is the "warrant of Scripture" 
for more than once complying with the precept of 
John 6 :54, 55, if there is no "warrant of Scripture" for 
more than once complying with the precept of John 
3:5, 8? There is none; and that proves that the 
Church has wrongly interpreted what it means to "eat 
the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood," 
so that one may have everlasting life, and proves that 
one must put on the "spirit and life" of Christ, so that 
one may have "everlasting life," in the manner or way 
already stated; that is, by a mental act and will, and 
not by a mouth-eating act. And that anyone, even 
children under twelve years of age, who have reached 

7 



98 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

the age of reason and accountability, supposed to be 
about the age of seven years, can do without literally 
partaking with the mouth of the supposed flesh and 
blood of Christ in the Eucharist, after the manner of 
cannibalism, and which then goes into the stomach 
and is destroyed by its "natural heat," causing then 
the presence of Christ also to "cease because of diges- 
tion;" although a Catholic layman believes, as we 
saw — 

That after a worthy Holy Communion Christ is and remains 
in your soul as long as you do not chase Him away by sin and 
enthrone Satan in, His place. 

Again, Christ said in the same discourse : 

I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not 
hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst (John 
6:34). 

How does one satisfy soul hunger and thirst? Does 
one put something of material form or appearance 
into the mouth in order to satisfy or reach the soul? 
Does one, for instance, satisfy one's love for an ab- 
sent loved one by eating the loved one's letter, or 
by eating with the mouth something representing the 
loved one, the photograph, for instance? No; for the 
soul's yearnings, hunger and thirst, are not reached 
and satisfied through the avenue of the mouth, but 
they are reached and satisfied through the mind. It 
is the same with the hunger and thirst of the soul for 
the "bread of life." And the "bread of life" is no more 
of literal or natural bread form or appearance, that 
can literally be eaten with the mouth, than is the 
"leaven of malice and wickedness," with which one 
should not "feast,' and the "unleavened bread of 
sincerity and truth" (i Cor. 5:8). with which one should 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 99 

"feast," of natural bread form or appearance that can 
be ''feasted" upon by the mouth. But they are mental 
conditions, activities or operations of the mind and 
will. And such is the "feasting" on the "bread of life" 
by the soul that hungers and thirsts for the "meat 
which endureth unto life everlasting," which "ever- 
lasting life" the "Son of Man will give you" (John 
6:27). And this "meat which endureth unto life ever- 
lasting" are laid up "treasures in heaven : where neither 
the rust nor moth doth consume" (Matt. 6:20), the 
eternal reward for which we should labor, instead of 
laboring for temporal reward, "the meat which per- 
isheth" (John 6:27), and does not mean the supposed 
literal "meat," flesh and blood of Christ, for which we 
do not have to "labour" (John 6 \2'y') , it being prepared 
for us by clerics, which we are to "consume" or eat 
and drink with the mouth, supposedly satisfying then 
the hunger and thirst of those who want life everlast- 
ing. For that hunger and thirst are not literal physical 
cravings or desires that can be satisfied through put- 
ting something into the mouth, but they are yearnings 
and desires of the soul and mind, and they must be 
reached through the mind, understanding, which re- 
ceives its food through the avenues of the senses of 
seeing or hearing or both. As, then, the hunger and 
thirst Christ spoke of in John 6 : 35 are not literal or 
of the body that receives its food through the channel 
of the mouth and throat, but are of the soul and mind, 
then the "bread of life" also is not of literal or natural 
bread form or appearance. For the first part of John 
6:35 cannot be taken literally or in the carnal sense 
and the remainder of it figuratively. 

Again, if the "meat," for which Christ said we 
should labor, and "which endureth unto life everlast- 



100 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

ing," is the Eucharist, the Church's "bread of life," 
''which the Son of Man will give you," then why re- 
ceive it "frequently, and even daily," unless one 
"chases Christ (the supposed "bread of Hfe") away by 
sin and enthrones Satan in His place ?" Would it be 
enduring "unto life everlasting," and would it be "im- 
perishable meat," if one could "consume" it to noth- 
ingness, so that one would have to receive it again 
and again and again, or, if on the destruction of the 
"species" by "natural heat" or "digestion," Christ 
makes His presence, the "bread of life," to cease exist- 
ence within one? No. It is evident, then, that what 
He would give us is "life everlasting," the "meat" of 
eternal reward, not the Eucharist, the Church's "bread 
of life," thus also making the "bread of life" not of 
material form or appearance, as the Church does. 
The "bread of life," then, is not of natural bread ap- 
pearance, but is the teachings of Christ, the Gospel, 
and His "spirit and life" as a model or example for 
us to emulate. Such being the case, then all children 
of the age of reason and accountability, and under 
twelve years of age, can and may partake with the 
mind and will of the "bread of life," put on Christ's 
"spirit and life," the spiritual meaning of to "eat the 
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood," and 
have "everlasting life," be "raised up in the last day,'" 
without Catholic Communion. All they need to do 
is to come or go to Christ, and believe and live as He 
would have them to live. 

But now it may be asked, What does it mean to 
go to Christ, or what is the Gospel, if it does not 
mean and include the Catholic literal interpretation 
of the precept to "eat the flesh of the Son of Man^ 
and drink His blood," in a literal or after a carnal man- 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 101 

ner, a mouth-eating act? Well, the coming or going to 
Christ for the "bread of life," the Gospel, means having, 
what Christ taught, Faith, Repentance, Amendment, For- 
giveness, Justice, Righteousness and Hope; that is 
faith that God is (Heb. ii:6) and will forgive repent- 
ant sinners who return to Him, forsake their sins^ 
amend their lives — and that there is the hope of a 
blissful everlasting life beyond the grave for those 
who here hunger and thirst for it, and who live and 
act so as to obtain it. Such being the Gospel, the 
"bread of life," then can one have and exercise faith, 
repentance, amendment, justice and hope by putting 
or taking some certain thing into the mouth, literally 
eating and swallowing it so that it goes into the 
stomach and is destroyed and digested by its "natural 
heat?" No; but those spiritual activities must and 
can come only through the mind and will, a mental 
act, not a mouth-eating act. 

That, then, is what the Gospel is, the ''bread of life,'' 
the "living bread which came down from heaven" (John 
6:41), as did all the other divinely inspired teachings 
of the Bible "come down from heaven," from God, 
if it does not include the Catholic literal interpreta- 
tion of John 6:53-58. Spiritual food can no more be 
materialized and be eaten with the mouth than faith, 
repentance, amendment, hope, etc., can. There is 
nothing more material or literal about the "bread of 
life" than there is about the following, which one 
certainly cannot literally eat and drink with the 
mouth : 

They that eat me (wisdom), shall yet hunger, and they that 
drink me, shall yet thirst (Ecclus. 24:29). 

Thy words were found, and I did eat them (Jer. 15: 15, 16), 



102 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Compare that with eating the "bread of life" and 
see if one can be made any more or less literal than 
the other. 

O taste, and see that the Lord is sweet (Ps. 33:9). 
How sweet are thy words to my palate : more than honey to 
my mouth (Ps. 118:103). 

Did that mean the literal tasting with the mouth, 
of the Lord in order to see if He literally tasted sweet, 
as honey, for instance, when the Israelites had no Real 
Presence of the Lord in eatable material elements to 
eat or taste by literally eating and drinking them with 
the mouth? And did it mean tasting words with the 
"palate" as one tastes honey? Hardly. And are words 
fed to the palate as honey is ? No. Why, then, believe 
the "bread of life" is to be eaten like Manna was in 
the desert, because Christ contrasted the "bread of 
life" with Manna? 

Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of 
salvation (Isa. 12:3). 

Is that to be taken literally? If so, then where 
are the holes in the ground that are "the wells of sal- 
vation" out of which one may draw water, which no 
doubt also ought to be of natural water appearance? 

They that depart from thee, shall be written in the earth, be- 
cause they have forsaken the Lord, the vein (fountain) of living 
waters (Jer. 17: 13). 

Did they have Sacraments in the days of Jeremiah, 
being that the Church believes her Sacraments now 
are the fountains of "living waters" (Catholic News, 
April 30, 1904, p. 8), and especially the Eucharist, as 
may be seen by the following? 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 103 

Why will men starve with spiritual hunger when they have 
within their grasp the bread of life? Why mil they be parched 
with thirst when they can be refreshed at the fountain of living 
waters? Why shiver with cold when they can be warmed at the 
fire of divine love? — Cardinal Gibbons on Daily Communion 
(Messenger of the Sacred Heart, June, 1909, p. 323) ? 

To continue: 

To him that thirsteth, I will give of the fountain of the 
water of life, freely (Apoc. 21:6; see also 22:17). 

As the "water of life," and "living water," mean 
one and the same thing, then did Christ mean He 
would give, freely, "to him that thirsteth," Com- 
munion, to quench his parching thirst, or did He mean 
Baptism? For a Catholic writer, in a personal letter 
to me, had the following to say about "living water': 

As regards the woman of Samaria, if you will again read 
previous verses you will observe that Our Lord was speaking 
of baptism and it requires no stretch of the imagination to see 
what was meant by "living water". Nor was Nicodemus con- 
cerned with mental water, but real water. 

By what we have seen, it is certain Christ did not 
mean either Communion or Baptism, that He would 
give freely "to him that thirsteth." But what He 
would give may be seen by John 7 : 39, where it says : 

Now this He said of the spirit which they should receive, 
who believed in Him. 

Now, if the "bread of life" is of literal or natural 
bread appearance, then where is the literal or natural 
water appearance "fountain of water," "well of sal- 
vation," that contains the "water of life'', "living 
water", so that one may draw it out as the woman 
of Samaria drew natural water out of Jacob's well, 



104 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

and that one may literally drink it, "freely," being 
that the Church calls the Eucharist the "bread of life" — 

Because it is made from bread, as man is called dust, be- 
cause he was made out of dust — Gen. Z- 19 (Clearing the Way, 
Rer. Xavier Sutton, p. 88) ? 

I repeat, where is that literal water appearance 
"fountain of water" that contains the "water of life?" 
There ought to be such a fountain and "living water" 
in it, if the "bread of life," the "living bread", is 
called so, "because it is made from bread." Is that not 
so? 

The "fountains of living water" and the "water of 
life" mean one and the same thing; that is, divine 
truths, graces, etc., in other words, the "living bread 
which came down from heaven." And the "bread of 
life," the "living bread," also mean the same. The 
"bread of life" and the "water of life," and the "living 
bread" and the "living water" are but alternate expres- 
sions and mean one and the same thing. That such 
is the case is further proven by the following : 

Jesus answered and said to her: If thou didst know the 
gift of God, and who he is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; 
thou perhaps wouldst have asked of him, and he would hare 
given thee living water (John 4: 10). 

And on the last, and great day of the festival, Jesus stood 
and cried, saying: If any man thirst, let him come to me, and 
drink. He that (drinketh me? No, but) believeth in me, as the 
Scripture saith, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters 
(John 7:37,38). 

The Church says, as we saw, that her Sacraments 
are the "fountains of living waters." If that is so, 
then do the Sacraments, the "rivers of living waters," 
flow "out of the belly," and would Christ have given 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 105 

the Samaritan woman, had she asked for "living 
water," and those who should have come to Him on 
the "great day of the festival," to eat and drink sup- 
posed transubstantiated bread and wine, when as yet 
He had not instituted any Sacraments? And would 
He have made them go to confession to Him in order 
to "prove" themselves worthy to eat His flesh and 
drink His blood ? Hardly. Yet He used very much 
the same kind of language in those two instances that 
He used in John 6 : 35. The "bread of life," then, is not 
literal bread of natural bread appearance, is it? No; 
and no more so than "living water" is of the form and 
appearance of natural water. The Church says further: 

Under the species of bread: for remarks Bourdaloue, "All 
foods not being as common, Christ selected that which was most 
so, which we can least dispense with, which nourishes rich and 
poor; the bread of every day: and it is thus He desires to give 
Himself to us every day" (Sentinel of the Blessed Sacrament,. 
August, 1908, p. 252). 

If, then, Christ selected bread, because the most 
common of foods, for the species under which to 
receive the "bread of life," then why did He not also 
select water, which is in reality more of a daily neces- 
city and nourishment than bread, and which is even 
more common than bread, for the species under 
which to receive and drink the "living water" if 
one "thirsteth" for it? It is because He did not mean 
anything of water form and appearance when He 
spoke of "living water," "water of life." And it was 
the same when He spoke of the "bread of life," "living 
bread ;" He did not mean anything of bread form and 
appearance, and he did not select bread, because most 
common of foods as the species under which He would 
give us the "bread of life," which "He desires to give 



106 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

to us every day" in Catholic Communion, as the 
Church believes. He had no bread before Him when 
he spoke of the "bread of life/' or said: "I am the 
bread of life." And at the institution of the Lord's 
Supper He did not say, as He took bread in His hands 
and blessed it : 

This is the living bread, or bread of life, that I promised, in 
the synagogue, in Capharnaum, I would one day give for the 
life of the world; that if any man eat of it, he may not die; that 
he might have everlasting life : and that I might raise him up in 
the last day. 

And the burden of His discourse with His disciples 
at the institution of the Lord's Supper was not about 
any "bread of life," but about His betrayal by Judas, 
and a simple memorial by which to specially remember 
Him, which memorial, or Eucharistic Sacrifice, the 
Mass, which the Church has made out of the plain and 
simple Lord's Supper, has by her been so "mystified" 
and surrounded with pomp, rites and ceremonies that 
one having only a Bible knowledge and description 
of the Lord's Supper cannot possibly recognize it as 
such. Yet he would easily recognize it as the Lord's 
Supper did he witness for the first time a Protestant 
Communion service. But be that as it may, when 
Christ spoke of the "bread of life" he had no bread 
before Him, yet there was natural water in Jacob's 
well before Him when He spoke to the Samaritan 
woman about "living water," and He even contrasted 
the one with the other, which He would give to drink, 
so that one "shall not thirst for ever," "become in 
Him a fountain of water, springing up into life ever- 
lasting." And yet the Church takes the "bread of 
life" in the literal sense, and the "living water" in a 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 107 

''metaphorical" sense. By what rule of logic and inter- 
pretation can that be done? 

In speaking of John 4: 14, which reads as follows: 

But the water that I will give him (to drink, ver. 13), shall 
become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting 
life, 

the Church says: 

This language is plainly metaphorical (The Path Which Led 
a Protestant Lawyer to The Catholic Church, Burnett, Rev. Jas. 
Sullivan, Ed., p. 294). 

If, then, Christ did not mean a thing of water form 
and appearance, when He spoke of the "water that 
I will give him" (John 4: 14), and the drinking of it 
was not to be after the manner of literally drinking as 
one would drink natural water, as that out of Jacob's 
well, for instance, then by what process of reasoning 
and rule of interpretation can the following be made 
literal, and not likewise "metaphorical?" 

If any man (from twelve years old on up?) eat of this bread, 
he shall live for ever; and the bread I will give, is my flesh, for 
the life of the world (John 6:52)? 

And is the "life of the world" (John 6 : 52) the same 
as "life everlasting" (John 4:14)? If so, then why 
is the method of obtaining it after the literal manner 
of eating something with the mouth, when it is after 
a different manner, a "metaphorical" manner, in 
John 4: 13, 14, vv^here Christ speaks of a water, "living 
water," as He speaks of a "living bread" (John 6: 51), 
and of drinking it, which the Samaritan woman 
believed she was to drink in as literal a manner as 
she drank the natural water from Jacob's well? Here 
He contrasted the "living water" and the drinking of 
it and its effects with the natural water from Jacob's 



106 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

well, and the Church says His ^'language is plainly 
metaphorical," while His contrasting the "bread of 
life" with manna (John 6:49), the Church takes not 
in a "metaphorical," but not in the literal, sense. Why 
taking this contrasting by Christ in plain language in 
one case in a "metaphorical" sense, and in the other 
in a literal sense, when the taking of it in the literal 
sense leads, as we saw, to a lot of absurdities, diffi- 
culties and contradictions, and, I might add, pagan 
idolatry and superstition, and to an unscriptural way 
of having the continuous presence of Christ? There 
is no way to account for it, or no other reason for it, 
except that the Church fell into error in her inter- 
pretation of John 6: 52-64; just as the Jewish Church 
did with the interpretations of the prophecies pertain- 
ing to "the promised Son of David," by taking them 
in the literal sense. 

Again, if, as the Catholic writer in a letter to me 
claims, Christ spoke of baptism when He spoke of 
"living water" (John 4: 10), then it would have to be 
drunk like natural water is drunk, if to eat the "bread 
of life" one must eat after the manner the manna 
was eaten. For He said: 

Whosoever drinketh of this water (from Jacob's well), shall 
thirst again ; but he that shall DRINK of the water that I will 
give him, shall not thirst for ever (John 4: 13). 

If by that Christ meant baptism, but by the drink- 
ing of the "living water" He did not mean that one 
should literally drink anything of the appearance of 
water, but should apply literal water on the external 
body, then by what process of reasoning and rule of 
interpretation can the Church claim the eating and 
drinking spoken of in John 6: 54, 55, is a literal bread 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 109 

and wine eating and drinking operation with the mouth? 
And what about the drinking in John 7 : 37 and in 
the latter part of Apoc. 22 : 17, if the "water 
of Hfe," "living water," means baptismal water? Was 
one to receive baptism frequently, because it says to 
"take the water of life, freely;" that is, at will and 
whenever one wants to? But if the "water of life" is 
not of natural water form and substance, then by what 
process of reasoning or rule of interpretation can the 
Church claim or make the "bread of life" — where is 
the wine of life?" — of bread form and substance? 

"Shall not thirst forever," then, is not a literal 
thirst, according to the one who wrote me. Yet in 
order never to thirst again Christ told the woman she 
must drink "living water," and He said it in such a 
way, by comparison with drinking natural water from 
Jacob's well, that she could not help but believe it 
was to be drunk in the same way that she drank the 
water from Jacob's well. And if the "living water" 
Christ spoke of meant baptismal waters, and when He 
said she must drink of it, He did not mean she must 
literally drink it, then why should the eating of the 
"bread of life" be after a literal or carnal manner, 
because He compared its eating with the eating of the 
manna by the fathers in the desert? It should not be. 
The Church has simply erred in the matter. 

Again, if Christ spoke of baptism to the woman of 
Samaria then He told her of a different way of 
receiving it from that which He told Nicodemus. For 
He said to her: 

He that shall DRINK of the water that I will give him, 
shall not thirst for ever. (Like John 6:35, where the same 
result is to be obtained by believing.) 



no HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

To Nicodemus He said: 

Unless a man be born again of water (That is, come out of 
an envelopment of water; not drink it) and the Holy Ghost, he 
cannot enter the kingdom of God. 

Those are two quite different and opposite methods. 
In one method man is to put the water into himself 
by drinking it, and in the other he is to put it on the 
external body. Now, which method is the correct one ? 
For if to drink in John 6 : 54 means to drink something 
literally with the mouth, then it must also mean a 
literal drinking with the mouth in John 4:13; for 
Christ voiced both of them. Which method, then, is 
the proper one for the reception of baptism if Christ 
spoke about baptism to the woman of Samaria when 
He mentioned "living water" to her? 

The whole difficulty and contradictions vanish 
when we reduce the operations in all these cases to a 
mental one of the mind and will. That is the "key" 
to the plain understanding of the meaning of Christ's 
words when He spoke of drinking "living water," 
"water of life," eating the "bread of life," and eating 
and drinking the flesh and blood of the Son of Man — 
meaning spiritually to put on His "spirit and life" by 
a mental operation of the mind and will. For all the 
operations of the Spirit are effected through the mind 
and will "by the hearing of faith" (Gal. 3:2), not "by 
works of the law," that is, visible material rites per- 
formed on the physical body. For the soul must be 
reached through the mind. 

When I learned that the soui must be reached, fed 
and nourished spiritually through the mind, the re- 
ceiving and assimilating organ of the soul, and not 
by putting certain things into the mouth and eating 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. Ill 

them as one does natural food for the body, then the 
error of the Church became as clear as day to me, 
when she believes and teaches that we must eat the 
supposed body of Christ if we want Him to enter our 
hearts, souls, and nourish and strengthen them, or that 
we must "frequent the Eucharistic table" if we want 
to "put on Christ,'* as Pope Leo XIII. taught. 

That the heart and soul must be reached through 
the mind, the opening to them, is further proven by 
the fact that evil thoughts enter them not through the 
mouth, but through the mind. And good thoughts 
enter in the same way. It is also said that : 

An idle mind is the devil's workshop. 

But how can the mind be the devil's workshop 
unless he gets into it? And how does he get into it? 
Does he enter it through the medium of something in 
material form that is eaten with the mouth ? No ; but 
by the mental act of the mind and will of the one 
who lets him in when he knocks, presses for admission, 
as Christ does (Apoc. 3:20). And it is the same 
with Christ reaching, entering the mind, heart and 
soul of man. All that one needs to do is to have the 
desire, mind and will to have Christ, that is, His 
Spirit, enter one's heart, soul, and He will enter with- 
out the medium of a material channel, the "frequenta- 
tion of the Eucharistic table." Even in Catholic 
Communion He must go from the mouth or from the 
stomach to one's heart, soul, without the medium of 
the Eucharist. For the Eucharist is received in the 
mouth, goes down the throat and into the stomach. 
So, then, why not receive Christ through the mind 
by faith, the scriptural way, so that He may dwell 
continuously with one till one "chased Him away by 
sin and enthroned Satan in His place?" And does 



112 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

one "enthrone Satan in His place" by receiving Satan 
in some material thing through the mouth ? No. And 
can not Christ go or enter where Satan can without 
a material channel, the reception of something in the 
mouth? Think of that question again. 

If, then, the heart, soul, must be reached through 
the mind, as the devil does, is not the Church, though 
supposed to be infallible, and the first and oldest 
Church after the Jewish Church, greatly in error for 
believing and teaching that the heart, soul, can be 
reached, fed and nourished, or that Christ can be put 
on, by putting a certain thing or things into the mouth, 
that is, "by the frequentation of the Eucharistic 
table?" Yes. 

Again, when one goes to Communion to receive 
Christ into one's heart, soul, and prays to Him there, 
and His presence ceases as soon as the "natural heat" 
has destroyed the "species," and one wants to continue 
praying to Him after His presence has ceased in one's 
heart, as, for instance, an hour or so after Communion, 
when the "species" certainly have "ceased because of 
digestion," then where does one or should one con- 
template Christ as having gone to or being? And 
what becomes of the Christ ego that was present in 
the species in one before they "ceased because of 
digestion ?" Does it go to the tabernacle to be merged 
into one ego with the Christ ego supposed to be 
present in the Eucharist there? If so, then would it 
not add to His quantity? Or, where does it go after 
it leaves one's heart, soul? Or, is it annihilated as 
the truth or wisdom in a book would be that was 
destroyed by the "natural heat" of the fire that de- 
stroyed it? For the Christ ego in each Eucharist is 
supposed to be a conscious entity, while the truth or 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 113 

wisdom in a book is not. In view of that, then, what 
becomes of the Christ ego received into one's heart by 
Communion, after the species have "ceased because of 
digestion/' and it requires the medium of the Eucharist 
to get Christ into one's heart, soul, and to hold Him 
there? Is it not evident that the heart, soul, must be 
reached through the mind and that that is the way 
to receive Christ? 



CHAPTER V. 

The Church has fallen into as great an error with 
regard as to how Christ is received and put on as the 
Galatians were, who would receive the Spirit "by the 
works of the law" (Gal. 3:2), that is, a carnal or bodily 
operation instead of a mental one through the mind, 
"by the hearing of faith" (Ibid.) And one might also 
exclaim here, as St. Paul did with regard to the 
Galatians (Gal. 3: 1-3) : 

O senseless Catholic Church, who hath bewitched you that 
you should now believe the Spirit of Christ is received by the 
flesh, that is, Communion of and through the mouth? Are you 
so foolish, that whereas the Spirit is received "by the hearing of 
faith", you would now have your members receive it "by the 
flesh" — mouth-eating Commimion ? 

Christ also said: 

Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall 
hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come to him, and 
will sup with him, and he with me (Apoc. 3:20). 

To "open the door" to Christ does that mean to 
open the mouth, the opening to the stomach, to receive 
Communion, the supposed "bread of life," or does it 
mean to open the mind, the opening to the heart and 
soul? It is manifestly the latter, is it not? Yes. 

In view, then, of all that we have noted, the "bread 

of life" is not a thing of material form, containing the 

supposed literal flesh and blood of Christ, which we 

must literally eat and drink if we want everlasting 

114 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 115 

life, as the Church teaches, and as understood by the 
Jews, who said: 

How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6; 53). 

Christ could easily have done that, just as easily 
as we are given other flesh to eat, if that had been 
what He meant. But He did not mean that; for He 
explained to His disciples later what He meant by 
that, and that was to put on, scripturally eat and 
drink, His "spirit and life" (John 6: 64). For in Scrip- 
ture when it speaks of eating and drinking anything 
outside of natural food and drink for the body, it 
means to imbibe and assimilate it with the mind and 
will, not by a mouth-eating and drinking operation. 

Because the Jews, and some of His disciples, took 
His sayings literally in the matter in question, the 
Church cites that as supporting her course for taking 
the sayings of Christ literally. But that is no criterion 
for taking them so; for the Jews also have always 
taken literally, and do so yet, the prophecies pertaining 
to their promised Messiah. Now, if the Jews were 
in error for taking in the literal acceptation those 
prophecies and have, therefore, not, and apparently 
will not, accept Christ as their promised Messiah, 
because He has not fulfilled the prophecies according 
to their literal acceptation of them, then are they to 
be taken as a criterion for the literal acceptation or 
understanding of the terms, the "bread of life," and 
for the literal eating and drinking of the supposed 
flesh and blood of Christ, because they so understood 
them and said: "How can this man give us his flesh 
to eat?" Hardly. 

The Jews, on the occasion in question, as much 
misunderstood Christ as did the Samaritan woman at 



116 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Jacob's well, when He told her about "living water," 
which if one drank of it one "shall not thirst for ever" 
(John 4:13), just as the one who believed in the 
"bread of life" "shall never thirst" (John 4:35). She 
then said to Him : 

Sir, thou hast nothing wherein to draw, and the well is 
deep; from whence then hast thou living water (John 4:11)? 

just as the Jews said, "How can this man give us his 
flesh to eat?" and as Nicodemus said, "How can these 
things be done?" (John 3:9.) After Christ told her 
the difference in the effects between using or drinking 
natural water and "living water," she said to him : 

Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come 
hither to draw (John 4:15), 

just as the Jews said :* 

Lord, give us always this bread (John 6:34). 

That they said to Christ after He told them 
what the effects would be of the "bread of God" 
(John 6:33), the "bread of life" (verse 35), the "living 
bread" (verse 51), which they later believed was His 
real, carnal flesh that He would give "for the life of 
the world" (verse 52), and which they believed they 
were to eat literally as the Samaritan woman believed 
she was to literally drink "living water." 

By the fact that the effect produced by the use of 
"living water" would be to make one "not thirst for 
ever" (John 4: 13), just as that of the "bread of life" 
would make one also to "never thirst" (John 6:35),. 
or, one "may not die" (verse 50), shows that the 
"living water," the "bread of life," the "living bread 
which came down from heaven" (verse 51), and the 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 117 

"my flesh, for the life of the world" (verse 52), are 
all one and the same thing. That the one is no more 
material in form and appearance than the other; that 
the one is no more of the appearance of natural bread 
than the other is of the appearance of natural water. 
Such being the case, then, there is no more a Real 
Presence of Christ in the "bread of life," as the Church 
claims there is, and which we must literally eat or 
drink in order that we may not die," may "live for 
ever," have "everlasting life" and be raised "up in the 
last day," than there is a Real Presence in the "living 
water," "water of life." And one is just as much of a 
"metaphorical" expression as the other. 

In view of all that, then, is it not plainly to be 
seen that the Church greatly erred in interpreting in 
the literal sense the sixth chapter of St. John, and 
thereby deduced the doctrine of the Real Presence 
from it, because the Jews apparently understood Christ 
as speaking in the literal sense and said: "How can 
this man give us his flesh to eat?" — "From whence 
then hast thou living water?" (John 4: 11) — "How can 
these things be done?" (John 3:9.) And Nicodemus. 
too, was "a master (teacher) in Israel" (John 3:10), 
and of an intelligence far superior to that of the Jews 
on the occasion of John 6 : 24-60. Yes ; it may easily 
be seen that she erred in her interpretation. 

The Church, in her Bible, in annotations to John 6: 
36 and 41, says: 

Ver. 36. You demand this bread; behold it is before you, 
and yet you eat it not. I am the bread; to believe in me is to 
eat me. You see me, but you do not believe in me. S. Austin — 
It is to this place that those words of S. Austin are to be re- 
ferred: "Why do you prepare your teeth and belly? believe 
in me, and you have eaten me". Words which do not destroy 



118 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

the real presence, of which he is not speaking in this verse, 
Maldon. 35. 

Ver. 41. I am the living bread, which came down from 
heofven. These Jews did not believe that Christ was the true and 
eternal Son of God, who came from heaven, and was madejiesh^ 
was made man. He speaks of this faith in him, when he calls 
himself the living bread, the mystical bread of life, that came to 
give life everlasting to all true and faithful believers. In this 
sense S. Augustin said, (Trac. 25, p. 489,) Why dost thou pre- 
pare thy teeth and belly f Only believe, and thou hast eaten \ 
but afterwards he passeth to his sacramental and real presence 
in the holy sacrament. Wi. 

But anyone who will closely examine the sixth 
chapter of St. John, from verses 31 to 59, will easily 
see that if to "believe in Christ is to eat Him," when 
speaking as in verses 35 and 40, then it means the same 
thing when speaking as in verses 50, 52, 55, 58 and 59. 
For by complying with the precepts of the former, 
one "may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up 
in the last day" (verse 40), just as one complying with 
the precepts of the latter, "hath everlasting life: and 
I will raise him up in the last day" (verse 55). There 
is no difference, then, is there, between the effects 
of verses 40 and 44, where, as we saw, one "has eaten" 
Christ by believing in Him, and verse 55, where He is 
supposed to have spoken after He, in His discourse, 
had passed "to His sacramental and real presence in the 
holy sacrament"? No. Nor is there any difference 
in the effects produced between verse 33, where the 
"bread of God," the "bread of life" (verse 35), "giveth 
life to the world" (verse 33), and verse 52, where 
Christ will give His flesh, "for the life of the 
world." And if in verses 34 to 41 "to believe 
in Christ is to eat Him," or if to "only believe, and 
thou hast eaten" Him, then it also means to believe 



HOW I BECAME A NON-GATHOLIC. 119 

in Him where He says : "He that eateth Me, the same 
also shall live by Me" (verse 58), and does then not 
mean that we must literally eat Him in Communion. 
And "he that eateth this bread shall live for ever" 
(verse 59), which is supposed to be after He had in 
His discourse passed "to His sacramental and real 
presence in the holy sacrament," means the same thing 
as "he that believeth in Me, hath everlasting life" 
(verse 47), which He is supposed to have spoken 
before that discourse on the Real Presence, does it 
not? Yes. For the Church believes Christ passed 
from "metaphorical," or figurative, speech to literal 
speech, and to "another topic at about the forty-eighth 
verse" (The Path Which Led, etc.. Rev. Sullivan, Ed., 
p. 276). But it is not quite easy to see a line of 
demarcation there, and that that going before the 
forty-eighth verse should be metaphorical speech and 
that that following it should be literal speech, the 
latter supposedly teaching the doctrine of the Real 
Presence and the literal mouth-eating and drinking of 
the flesh and blood of Christ, which are supposed to 
be "in the holy sacrament." For it appears there is 
no more difference, in substance, between the meaning 
of that which goes before that supposed line of 
demarcation, and that which follows it, than there is 
betwixt the meaning of John 3 : 3, 5, 6 and 8. And it 
seems the Jews misunderstood that which went before 
that line of demarcation as they did that which fol- 
lowed it, for they said, "Lord, give us always this 
bread" (verse 34), as they after that line said, "How 
can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (verse 53.) 

The sixth chapter of St. John, then, does not treat, 
as the Church claims, of the Real Presence, and the 



120 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

literal eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of 
Christ, does it? 

By the forepart of the sixth chapter of St. John, 
which chapter the Church, and all Catholic writers, 
claim is "a treatise on the Blessed Sacrament, the 
Real Presence, etc." (The Gospel Plea for Christian 
Unity, Rev. James O'Donoghue, p. 42), it may be seen 
that the Jews also took in the literal sense the 
prophecies pertaining to their promised Messiah, as 
may be seen by the following: 

Now those men (Who the next day said: "How can this 
man give us his flesh to eat?'), when they had seen what a 
miracle Jesus had done, said: This is of a truth the prophet, 
that is to come into the world. Jesus, therefore, when he knew 
that they would come to take him by force, and make him king, 
fled again into the mountain himself alone (John 6:14, 15). 

Of the promised Messiah, "the prophet that is to 
come into the world," the following was foretold: 

Jehovah hath sworn unto David in truth; : : : of the 
fruit of thy loins I will set upon thy throne (Ps. 131:11; Acts 
2:30). 

The government is upon his shoulder: . . . His empire 
shall be multiplied. ... he shall sit upon the throne of David 
and upon his kingdom: to establish it. ... And I will lay 
the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, . . . and 
he shall reign in the house of Jacob forever (Isa. 9:6, 7; 22: 
22; Luke 1:32). 

As the throne, king, kingdom and "house of Jacob," 
of which the prophecies spoke, were not earthly, but 
spiritual, a new church in which Christ would by His 
Spirit reign in the hearts of the people as King, then 
did the Jews not err in taking the prophecies in the 
literal sense, when they would make Christ an earthly 
king, set Him upon the literal earthly "throne of 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 121 

David, His father" (Luke 1:32), which throne had at 
one time been in Jerusalem, even though it was a 
theocratic throne? Yes. For the "kingdom" could 
not have meant to the Jews their Church. For they 
had not lost their Church, though it might have been 
"fallen down" (Acts 15: 16), have become corrupt, as 
the Reformers of the sixteenth century claimed the 
Roman Catholic Church had become, so that "the 
prophet that is to come into the world," should "estab- 
lish it," rebuild it. In fact, they had been and were 
taught to believe the covenants, ordinances, etc., of 
their Church were for "everlasting," "for ever," "per- 
petual" (Gen. 17:3; Lev. 3:17; 6:13; 16:34, etc.), 
and their Church was to be rebuilt and be as it "was 
of old" (Amos 9:11; Acts 15:16-18), so that the 
thought of a new Church, in which the promised 
Messiah was to reign, was foreign to them, and they 
could not, therefore, have understood the "kingdom" 
to be any other kingdom than David's earthly king- 
dom that had been lost to the' Romans, which the 
"Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6) was to "establish," 
rebuild and govern. Now, as Christ knew they were 
holding wrong views about the kind of kingship that of 
the promised Messiah's would be, then would not that 
have been the time and place to have explained to them 
that the prophecies were not to be taken in the literal 
sense, unless the prophecies "were calculated to 
deceive the greater number of" the Jews, as the 
Church claims would be the case with the people of 
the present and all times were Christ's words of 
John 6 : 54, 55 and Luke 22 : 19, 20 not to be under- 
stood in the literal sense, as may be seen by the 
following ? 



122 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

And when the Jews objected to this doctrine (of John 
vi. 54, 55) as repugnant, far from telling them it was figurative 
language. He repeated His statement and allowed them to de- 
part; more than this, He allowed some of His disciples to depart 
because they, too, understood Him to speak of His living body 
as being in truth meat for them; and far from disabusing their 
minds of the Catholic Hteral interpretation of His words, which 
it would seem He would have been bound in honesty to do were 
it false. He turned to His Apostles and would have them too to 
go away: "Will ye also go away?" if they did not accept this 
interpretation (The Gospel Plea for Christian Unity, Rev. Martin 
O'Donoghue, pp. 42, 43). 

That was no time (Luke 22:19, 20) to speak in misleading 
figures of speech, for our Lord was making His Last Testament, 
and instituting a sacrament and a sacrifice which would last until 
His second coming (Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 26). Would He, 
the Infinite Wisdom, and the Lover of Souls, use words which 
were calculated to deceive the greater number of His people for 
all time, and lead them into the idolatry He came expressly to 
abolish (The Question-Box Answers, Rev. Bertrand L. Conway, 
pp. 430, 431)? 

As the Jews understood in the literal sense the 
prophecies pertaining to "the prophet that is to 
come into the world," who was to "abide for ever" 
(John 12:34), the kingdom and king (John 19:15), 
then was Christ not "bound in honesty" to tell them 
that the prophecies did not mean an earthly kingdom 
and king, but meant a spiritual kingdom, a church, 
which He would spiritually "abide with for ever" and 
govern, and that He would by His Spirit reign in the 
hearts and lives of the people as King, as now under- 
stood by the Christian churches, unless the prophecies 
"were calculated to deceive the greater number of" 
the Jews. Yes. Yet He did not so explain the prophe- 
cies to them and instead He "fled again into the moun- 
tain Himself alone." 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 123 

I will make a digression here before we get too 
far away from the last two quotations. In the first it 
says : "His disciples understood Him to speak of His 
living body as being in truth meat for them." Yes; 
but it was not to be understood in the literal sense as 
a "meat" that was to be eaten with the mouth, but 
as a living example to them of "spirit and life," deeds 
and good works ; just as the "meat to eat" (John 4: 32). 
which Christ told His disciples He had to eat, was to 
"do the will of Him that sent Him" (John 4 : 34) . 
Here Christ explained to them what He meant by 
"meat," just as He in John 6:64 explained to them 
what He meant by John 6 : 54-58, and that it meant 
"spirit and life," which were to be used in the same 
way that Christ "eat" the "meat" His Father gave 
Him to eat. But as most of His disciples, being Jews, 
and being, therefore, imbued with a sensuous and 
materialistic view of religion and the prophecies, they 
took a literal view of the discourse, therefore, and 
they did not grasp the spiritual meaning very readily 
of His words, and did not apparently understand what 
He meant by "spirit and life," they then "went back ; 
and walked no more with Him" (John 6 : 67) . 

The unfoldment of the spiritual meaning of words 
in Scripture is a slow process — which was my experi- 
ence — where the consciousness has long and always 
been impressed and imbued with the literal meaning 
of Scripture words, which was the case with most of 
Christ's disciples and the Jews, who looked upon the 
words of the prophecies pertaining to the "promised 
Son of David" as to be taken in the literal sense. 
Therefore, some of His disciples looked upon the 
words of Christ as to be taken in the Hteral sense, as 
they had upon the prophecies, and as the spiritual 



124 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

unfoldment of the meaning of the words did not come 
to them at the time, they looked upon them as "hard," 
and who can hear it?" — accept it, and they then 
"walked no more with Him. Had they looked upon 
"His living body" as an example for them, instead of 
looking upon it as to be eaten as the "meat bought 
in the shambles," they would not have thought it a 
"hard" saying, and would then not have left Him. 

Now, for the last quotation. In it is this : "Would 
He, the Infinite Wisdoni . . . lead them into the 
idolatry He came expressly to abolish?" Was it 
Jewish Church "idolatry He came expressly to 
abolish?" If so^ and it must be, for He was address- 
ing Jews "in the synagogue" (John 6:60), then how 
could the Jewish Church fall into idolatry if she was 
up to that time the true Church of God, was infallible 
and was preserved from erring and falling into 
idolatry, as the Church claims she was, as we shall 
see later, and as the Church claims is the case with 
herself, because she is supposed to be the "only and 
true Church of Christ?" If, then, the Jewish Church 
could in time fall into idolatry, then why could not 
the Roman Catholic Church likewise in time fall into 
idolatry with regard to the adoration and worship of 
the Eucharist as "a God"? 

Now, back to where the digression "w<*s made. 
Neither did Christ set the Jews aright on the matter 
of His kingship when they accused Him before Pilate 
for claiming or admitting He was the "king of the 
Jews," as may be seen by Matt. 27:11; Mark 15:2; 
Luke 23: 2, 3, and John 19: 12, 15. Now, why did He 
not set them aright or "disabuse their minds" of their 
false views? It was no doubt because He knew it 
would be useless to do so, had He tried to tell them 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 125 

that the prophecies did not have a literal meaning, but 
had a spiritual meaning, and that He would be a 
spiritual King and reign by His Spirit in the hearts 
and lives of the people. For had he attempted to so 
explain the prophecies to them, they, in their excited 
imaginations and material and sensuous views of re- 
ligion, might in the end have said, as Nicodemus, "a 
master in Israel," did: "How can these things be 
done?" Or they might have ridiculed Him and said, 
as one did of me, that He was a "deluded religio- 
maniac who expects to be made the prophet of a new 
revelation." Those were probably the reasons why 
Christ did not attempt to set the Jews aright at the 
time on the matter in question. It is true that He 
did a number of times say His "Kingdom is not of 
this world," but it was too late then, they believing 
He was saying that only after He saw death staring 
Him in the face. But even then He did not say His 
kingdom meant a church ; for if He had it would have 
made matters no better. For then the Jews would 
have felt, or might have felt, that their High Priest's 
office would be endangered and lost, which they might 
have regarded as a greater calamity than the losing 
of their identity as a nation; just as Catholics would 
regard the loss of the office of the Pope as a greater 
calamity than the loss of identity of any earthly nation, 
or the loss of their dearest personal treasures on earth. 
That the Jews in general misunderstood the 
prophecies is not to be wondered at ; for even the dis- 
ciples of Christ misunderstood them, as well as the 
mission and sayings of Christ. And it was not till 
after they received on Pentecost the "Paraclete," the 
"Spirit of truth," that they received the revelation of 
the true meaning of the prophecies and the sayings 



126 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 

of Christ. Even after the Resurrection and just before 
the Ascension of Christ, and after they had been with 
Him during most of the time of His missionary labors, 
they had a wrong understanding of the mission of 
Christ on earth. For they said to Him just before the 
Ascension : 

Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom ta 
Israel (Acts 1:6)? 

Did Christ then and there "disabuse their minds" 
of their false views? No. No doubt they thought 
Christ would "restore again the kingdom to Israel," 
an earthly kingdom, that which the Israelites had lost 
to the Romans, then dispose it to them after dividing 
it into twelve provinces, building thrones and placing 
them upon the "thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel" (Luke 22:29, 30), they no doubt having taken 
in the literal sense the prophecies and the sayings ofi 
Christ in Luke 22 : 29, 30. Even Catholic writers of 
authority at this day do not interpret alike Luke 22: 
29, 30, as may be seen by the following: 

(Luke xxii. 29, 30). (1) What kingdom is meant? (2) What 
table, at which they were to eat? (3) Where are the thrones 
upon which they are to sit? (4) Who are meant by the twelve 
tribes of Israel? 

Answers. 1. By the kingdom is meant the eternal glory and 
happiness of Heaven, of which Christ made them "co-heirs" 
with Himself. 2. By eating and drinking at his table is meant 
the everlasting union with Himself, and the possession of His 
love which would be theirs in Heaven. 3. By the throne of 
judgment is meant, that in the General Judgment the Apostles 
will assist as assessors, or "co-judges" with Christ. 4. Israel 
here stands for mankind (Truth, October, 1907, p. 158). 

He is seated with His chosen at the Last Supper. How 
momentous His words, as St. Luke has preserved them for us 
(xxii. 29-32) : "I appoint unto you a kingdom", He says "as 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 127 

My father hath appointed unto Me: that you may eat and drink 
at My table in My kingdom, and may sit upon thrones judging 
the twelve tribes of Israel". This "kingdom" is, evidently, the 
Church here on earth; for the eating and drinking at His table 
means the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice just instituted. 
The "twelve tribes of Israel" are the new Israel, to be created by 
the preaching of the Gospel through the world. And they (the 
Apostles) are to reign over this Israel in their successors, the 
bishops of the Church (A Short Cut to The True Church, Rev. 
Edmund Hill, C. P., pp. 40, 41). 

Those two authorities do not agree by a good deal, 
do they? No. Yet the Church says: 

The Catholic Church alone, of all the Christian communions, 
claims to exercise the prerogative of infallibility in her teaching. 
Her ministers always speak from the pulpit as having authority^ 
and the faithful receive with implicit confidence what the Church 
teaches, without once questioning her veracity (The Faith of Our 
Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons, pp. 62, 63). 

Non-agreements in the teachings of "authorized 
ministers" certainly does not show a very great "in- 
fallibility in her teaching," does it? No. And it 
seems it would be grounds for "once questioning her 
veracity," if Catholics had the courage to dare to ques- 
tion it. 

Luke 22 : 29, 30 was figurative or parabolic speech, 
and it was spoken at the time Christ instituted the 
memorial of His special remembrance, the Lord's 
Supper. Yet the Church says: 

On that night Jesus would not speak figuratively; in fact^ 
He had told the Apostles a short time before, that He would 
never more speak to them in parables. Would the Great Teacher 
deceive us in His last will and testament concerning a matter of 
such tremendous importance? What a vast difference between 
being actually present in the Eucharist and not being present 
(Truth, April 1908, p. 3). 



128 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

But yet on that very same night He did speak 
figuratively to the Apostles. And by Acts i : 6 it may 
be seen that they must have understood Him literally 
when He spoke as in Luke 22 : 29, 30. Now, did the 
Great Teacher deceive them, because he told them "a 
short time before that He would never more speak in 
parables," figuratively, which He spoke after He had 
instituted the Lord's Supper? 

The Church says further : 

As the Church understands it, the Blessed Eucharist was 
promised in the 6th chapter of St. John's Gospel, leaving the 
mere manner in which it was to be given, to be explained by 
the institution of the sacrament (The Path Which Led a Prot- 
estant Lawyer to The Catholic Church, Burnett, Rev. Sullivan, 
Ed., p. 310). 

At the institution of the Lord's Supper Christ did 
not say: "This is that flesh and blood I promised, 
in the synagogue, in Capharnaum, to give for the life 
of the world." But the burden of His discourse or 
conversation He had with His disciples at the time, 
was His betrayal by Judas. Now, if He was going 
to institute a sacrament of such "tremendous impor- 
tance" as the Church has made of the Real Presence, 
the Eucharist, then would He be discoursing instead 
about His betrayal, immediately preceding and imme- 
diately after the institution of the Eucharist? Hardly. 
The Lord's Supper has no connection whatever with 
John 6th. That is even made plain by I Cor. 11 : 23-26. 
St. Paul said nothing about eating and drinking the 
Lord's Supper so that one may "have everlasting Hfe, 
and be raised up in the last day." Neither did Christ 
say: "Do this, that you may have everlasting Hfe, 
and I will raise you up in the last day." But He 
said: "Do this for a commemoration of Me." And 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 129 

surely we can specially remember Him by eating and 
drinking blessed bread and wine after the manner 
they did at the Last Supper, and without eating and 
drinking Him, just as we can specially remember 
George Washington's birthday without eating and 
drinking him, by simply attending a birthday banquet 
given in his honor or memory. 

But be that as it may, let us return to where we 
digressed again. Yet in all the time Christ was with 
His disciples He did not "disabuse their minds" of 
their wrong understanding of His mission on earth, 
which He no doubt knew they had about it. For He 
knew it would be useless to explain it to them, and 
that it would be revealed to them when they received 
the "Paraclete." And granting that they at the time 
of John 6 : 48-69 professed to have understood Christ 
in the literal sense, the true and spiritual meaning of 
His words was no doubt revealed to them in time 
after they had received the "Paraclete," "the Spirit of 
truth." And no doubt it was then revealed to them; 
for not one in his writings later stated that we must 
literally "eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink 
His blood," in order to obtain everlasting life, but 
told them to receive the Spirit "by the hearing of 
faith," and exhorted the people to become "renewed 
in the spirit of their mind," that is, change from a 
spirit and life of worldliness and sin to a "spirit and 
life" of Godliness and virtue, and have, as we saw, 
Christ formed in them by having Him by His Spirit 
dwell in them not through the reception of anything 
material by the mouth, but "by faith." 

Now, in view of all that, and the fact that the 
Jews at other times misunderstood Christ, then are 
we to take their understanding of John 6th, because 



130 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

they took it in the literal sense and said: "How can 
this man give us his flesh to eat?" as a criterion for 
the supposed literalness of John 6th? Hardly. 
Again, Christ in the same discourse, said: 

I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the 
desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down 
from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. . . . 
If any man (this must include infants if John 3 : 5 does) eat 
this bread, he shall live forever (John 6:48-50, 52). 

The negative of that must mean that "if any man 
eat not of this bread he shall not live forever," just 
as he that "is not born again shall not see the kingdom 
of God." Is not, then, Communion necessary for the 
salvation of infants and children if baptism is? But 
be that as it may, if the texts quoted are to be taken 
literally, then where or on what plane of existence 
are those to "live forever" who eat of the "bread of 
life," being that those who literally eat and drink the 
supposed literal flesh and blood of Christ die to 
appearances the same death the "fathers" did who 
"eat manna in the desert, and are dead?" 

Were the Jews to understand that the souls of their 
fathers who died in the desert are wholly dead in 
soul as well as in body, dead forever, annihilated, so 
that they will not be "raised up in the last day?" Such 
would be the case if the "bread of life" is to be taken 
literally as bread of natural bread appearances, or else 
the "fathers" are all in hell, if "dead" in verse 49 does 
not mean total annihilation of consciousness, and 
means they will never be "raised up in the last day"^ 
to "see the kingdom of God," see "everlasting life." 
For those who eat and drink the supposed flesh and 
blood of Christ die to appearances the same physical 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 131 

death that the ''fathers" in the desert did, and we bury 
them in like manner. And not only the souls of the 
"fathers" but the soul of every one, from infants to 
children up to twelve years of age, who had not 
received Communion, would at death become totally 
annihilated and would not be "raised up in the last 
day," or else all of them would go to hell — see "death." 
Is that not so according to a strict literal interpreta- 
tion of the texts in question? Yes. And according 
to the following they would go to hell, be perishable, 
if to be "perishable" means to go to hell : 

You shall never be saved, you shall never see eternal life. 
"He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting 
life, and I shall raise him up in the last day". Christ here 
threatens with eternal damnation [Hell] those that refuse to eat 
His flesh and drink His blood (Transubstantiation, Rev. Father 
Damen, p. 7). , 

The manna was an appropriate summing up of all the won- 
derful works which God had wrought in behalf of His chosen 
people, ... yet it was after all but a perishable gift, and 
perishable remained they who partook of its vanishing sweetness; 
but this new manna [The "bread of life"] is not a perishable 
gift, and they that eat thereof shall not die forever (The 
Sacramental Life of The Church, Rev. Bernard J. Otten, S. J., 
p. 76). 

He compares this bread to the manna, which was given to 
the Israelites in the desert, and points out its superiority [As He 
did that of the "living water" over the natural water from 
Jacob's well], inasmuch as it imparts everlasting life, whereas 
those who ate of the manna are dead (Ibid., pp. 81, 82). 

If the opposite of or absence of "everlasting life" 
is "eternal damnation," being "perishable," dead, then 
would not the Jews who "did eat manna in the desert, 
and are dead," be in hell, and would not then all 
these, including infants, who have died, or will yet 



132 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

die, without having received Communion, be dead 
forever, be ''perishable," be in hell or go there? 
Besides, the Church says: 

According to our Saviour's promise the worthy communicant 
has received a pledge of salvation (Here quotes John 6:55). 
But, unfortunately, many soon forfeit this pledge by incurring 
again the guilt of mortal sin, but Jesus gladly renews His prom- 
ise every time they come after contrite confession, to eat again 
of the bread that sows in the body the seeds of immortality and 
incorruption (The Messenger of The Sacred Heart, December, 
1908, p. 717). 

According to that, those who do not eat of "the 
bread that sows in the body the seeds of immortality 
and incorruption" will not have immortality and in- 
corruption. And if so, then does that mean hell, 
"eternal damnation," or annihilation for such, including 
all Catholic children under twelve years of age, who 
die without ever receiving Communion, when they 
leave this plane of existence? And which of the two 
states, then, is the present one of the fathers who 
"did eat manna in the desert, and are dead," "perish- 
able," if John 6:48-57 is to be taken in the literal 
sense. Will any of the Catholic writers I have just 
quoted dare go to a Jew and tell him his forefathers 
who "did eat manna in the desert, and are dead," are 
in hell "perishable"? 

Again, how is the seed of immortality and in- 
corruption sown if it leaves again "whole and entire" 
when the Host has "ceased because of digestion" or 
has been destroyed by "natural heat," causing then 
the presence of Christ, the seed of immortality, to 
cease living in one, pulling it up by the roots, as it 
were, or if Christ is ever eaten in Communion "without 
being consumed," without germinating in the body or 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 133 

soul? Another difficulty when taken in the Catholic 
literal sense, is it not? Yes. John 6:48-57, then, can 
not be taken in the literal sense without involving the 
doctrine of the immortahty and of the resurrection of 
any but those who have literally with the mouth "eat 
the flesh of the Son of Man," or else we would have 
to believe that all others are destined for hell, are 
in hell, "perishable"? 

When the Church teaches as w^e saw from the last 
few quotations of Catholic writers she does, she seems to 
forget about her own children under twelve years of age, 
who die without ever receiving Communion. Is that 
not so? 

Again, if the Eucharist, the "new manna, is not a 
perishable gift," then where does the newly-made 
imperishable flesh and blood of Christ-God go after 
the "species" have "ceased because of digestion?" Or 
how is it "new" if it is only a multiplication of the 
presence of the "glorified body of Christ in heaven?" 
And does one in Communion eat only the "presence" 
of Christ? Or why "frequent, and even daily" Com- 
munion, unless His "presence" is "chased away by 
sin?" For it seems that one present imperishable, 
omnipotent Christ-God with one would be sufficient 
for all purposes, if "one with God is a majority," and 
"if God be for us who can be against us ?" The latter 
is a thing for Christian Science healers to bear in 
mihd when they fail to heal anyone when they claim 
the reason they failed to heal it was because of "the 
adverse or antagonistic mental atmosphere that sur- 
rounded their patients." For if God be for Christian 
Science healing, then who can be against it so as to 
prevent healing? But be that as it may, there are a 
lot of difficulties, indeed, were there a Real Presence 



134 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

in the Eucharist, it was "imperishable," and John 6: 
48-58 should be taken in the literal sense. 
Again, Christ said : 

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in 
me, and I in him (John 6:57). 

The Church says: 

It is easy to conceive of Christ as the lover of souls, taking 
one more step (institution of the Eucharist) to unite Himself 
personally with souls so dear to Him (Truth, April, 1908, p. 3). 

To dwell in Christ and He in us at the same time 
can not be taken in a plain, literal and "obvious 
sense;" for we can not dwell within a house of four 
walls and at the same time that very house be within 
us. So with Christ and us. But we dwell in Him 
when we abide by or have the consciousness of His 
word, spirit and life and letting them influence, guide 
and govern our spirit, life and conduct. And He 
abides in us by His spirit when we live with a spirit 
and life that is as His was, and if we live according 
to His words. That is in accordance with "if you 
abide in me, and my words abide in you" (John 15 : 7), 
and, "as therefore you have (by faith) received Jesus 
Christ the Lord, walk ye in Him" (Col. 2: 6) — that is, 
walk in the consciousness of His words and being 
guided and impelled by them and His spirit and life. 
It does not mean a literal walking in Him as one 
walks in a house. As the latter part of John 6:57, 
then, is not to be taken in the literal sense, so also 
then is the other part not to be taken in the strict 
literal sense, be regarded as a mouth-eating operation, 
but must be regarded in the spiritual sense, and as a 
precept of a mental act and will, by which one through 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 135 

the mind puts on the "spirit and life" of Christ and 
^'goes about doing good." That is the only way we 
can have the continuous abiding presence of Christ, 
have Him abide in us and we abide in Him. About a 
fifteen minutes' presence of Christ within us, by the 
Eucharist, monthly, quarterly or yearly, certainly can 
not be called as an abiding of Christ in us and we in 
Him. Such being the case, then is it not plainly 
evident that it is not through the reception of the 
Eucharist that we abide in Him and He in us, or that 
we "walk in Him?" Or that He unites Himself per- 
sonally with souls? 

Again, could it be called a uniting of "Himself 
personally with souls," if one communicates only 
monthly, quarterly or yearly and Christ takes His 
departure as soon as the Eucharist has "ceased because 
of digestion," which is at the most "about fifteen 
minutes after receiving?" Hardly. 

Is, then, my understanding of how to have Christ 
abide in us continuously — until we "chased Him away 
by sin" — and we abide in Him^ not the reasonable and 
comprehensible way, and in accordance with the texts 
already quoted, which speak of how to have the Spirit 
of Christ in us and how He is formed in us? There 
are no absurdities, no difficulties, no contradictions in 
that, are there? It is as plain as A B C after we once 
understand it. Such an understanding also makes it 
possible for children dying under twelve years of age, 
who are not permitted by the Church to receive Com- 
munion, "eat the flesh of the Son of Man," to have 
"everlasting life," be "raised up in the last day." 

In view, then, of all that we have noted, we can 
not take John 6; 48-64 in the literal sense, as the 
Church does, but we must take it in the spiritual 



136 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

sense, or, as the Church would say, in a "metaphorical" 
or figurative sense, although the spiritual sense is not 
exactly the same as the metaphorical or figurative 
sense. But says the Church : 

We cannot use figures of speech arbitrarily, and give them 
at will a new meaning, merely to meet the demands of contro- 
versy. "If I discover," argues Cardinal Wiseman, "that among 
the persons whom Jesus addressed, it (that is, the phrase to eat 
flesh) did bear a figurative signification besides its literal sense, 
then I must conclude that those persons could only select be- 
tween that established figurative sense, and the literal import of 
the words" (p. 77). "Now I do assert that whether we examine 
(a) the phraseology of the Bible (Ps. xxvi. 2, Job xix. 22, Mich, 
iii. 3, Eccles. iv. 5, Gal. v. 15, (b) the ordinary language of the 
people who still inhabit the same country, and have inherited the 
same ideas (i. c), the Arabs, or (c) in fine, the very language 
in which our Saviour addressed the Jews (Syro-Chaldaic), we 
shall find the expression to eat the Hesh of a person signifying in- 
variably, when used metaphorically, to attempt to do him some 
serious injury, principally by calumny or false accusation. Such 
therefore, was the only figurative meaning which the phrase could 
present to the audience at Capharnaum" (p. 80; cf. pp. 80-91). 
As no one would ever imagine that Christ could promise eternal 
life on condition of our calumniating Him, there remains but 
one possible sense of the words — the literal (The Question-Box 
Answers, Rev. B. L. Conway, pp. 421, 422). 

In the phraseology of the Bible to eat flesh has three 
different meanings. One is to literally eat it as 
cannibals and animals do. Another way is to do one 
"some serious injury," by devouring, killing, destroy- 
ing one. And another way, the third, is, like **to eat 
the book," to get a knowledge of one's spirit, character 
and life and assimilate them, which is done by the 
mind and will. We can likewise say there are three 
ways "to eat a book." One is to literally eat it as 
one would natural food. Another way is to do it 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 137 

"some serious injury" by tearing it to pieces, destroy- 
ing it, devouring it in fire. And another way, the 
third way, is to get a knowledge of its contents, imbib- 
ing and assimilating them. Now, it was the third way 
that Christ meant when He said to St. John: 

Take the book, and eat it up (Apoc. 10:9). 

And it was also after the third way of "to eat flesh" 
that He meant when He said we should "eat" Him, "eat 
His flesh," eat His "spirit and life." If, then, we admit 
the third way, and that appears to be a reasonable, com- 
prehensible and consistent way, then does there not 
remain another sense other than the figurative and 
the "one possible sense of the words — the literal?" 
And if so, then is not my understanding and inter- 
pretation of John 6th the correct one? If so, then is 
the Church not in error? Here is the point: if we 
admit the third way, a spiritual sense of interpretation 
of John 6th, then I am right and the Church is wrong. 
If we do not admit the third way, a spiritual inter- 
pretation of John 6th, then the Church is right and 
I am wrong. Think of that ! 

Again, the literal, or the "but one possible sense 
of the words" "eat My flesh," can not be and is not 
taken in its plain, literal and obvious sense after all 
by the Church, if the following is true : 

It must be remembered that our Saviour's body in the glori- 
fied state is spiritualized, possesses the qualities of a spirit (Truth, 
April, 1908, p. 6), 

Now, if Christ's body is "spiritualized, possesses 
the qualities of a spirit," and "a spirit hath not flesh 
and bones" (Luke 24:39), then to "eat My flesh" is 
not in that literal sense after all as the Jews would 



138 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

have had to understand it, if "to eat flesh" was not 
to be taken in that figurative sense as the Jews under- 
stood "to eat flesh" meant. For Christ was not as a 
"spirit," but as "the Son of Man," as human in appear- 
ance to the Jews as the Apostles were, when He said: 

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath ever- 
lasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day (John 6: 55). 

If it comes right to the point, then, of a plain, 
literal meaning of His words "to eat My flesh," such 
as one would understand of one who should say : 

I will not go where carnivorous animals or cannibals are that 
might eat my flesh and drink my blood, could they get at me, 

it is not strictly literal after all, but after a partly 
figurative manner, after the manner of faith, to eat 
the supposed flesh of Christ when receiving Catholic 
Communion, "consuming" Christ, "feeding upon His 
blessed body," so that, then. His blood "flows in our 
veins as the blood of God." And it makes it a case 
of "now you do, and now you do not" eat the flesh 
and drink the blood of Christ. Is that not so? Christ's 
words, then, are not to be taken in either a Syro- 
Chaldaic figurative sense, or in a plain, literal and 
''obvious sense," the only other "one possible sense" 
than the figurative, are they? No; for there is a third 
sense, a sense besides the figurative and the literal, 
which may be called the spiritual sense. 

In view, then, of what we have seen, the words 
"I am the bread of life," "eat the flesh of the Son of 
Man," etc., can not be taken literally, even though the 
"Syro-Chaldaic Jews," to whom Christ spoke, may 
have understood them literally, and notwithstanding 
what Cardinal Wiseman said to the contrary. And 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 139 

the words *'I am the bread of life," then, are to be 
taken no more literally than the following: 

I am the light of the world; I am the door; I am the vine 
(John 8: 12; 10:9 and 15:5). 

Each and all four of the terms are to be understood 
not literally, but, in terms other than spiritual, in the 
figurative or "metaphorical." For, if otherwise, then 
see the great difficulties, contradictions and absurdities 
encountered in connection with taking the ''bread of 
life" in the literal sense and believing there is a Real 
Presence of Christ in it, and which have already been 
noted. "The bread of life," then, does not mean that 
it is the flesh and blood of Christ. It means His 
gospel and life; just as His gospel and life make Him 
^*the light of the world;" or His gospel and life make 
Him the "door;" or His gospel and life make Him 
'**the vine." Is that not so? Yes. 

All four of the texts, then, mean practically one 
and the same thing and each one is "metaphorical," 
or figurative, and not one, "I am the bread of life," 
literal or of bread appearance and the other three, 
including "the water of life," "living water," "meta- 
phorical," as the Church has interpreted them. 

As the "bread of Hfe," then, is not of material or 
"bread form that can be eaten with the mouth, we may 
rest fully assured that to "eat this bread" (John 6 : 59) 
then no more means to literally eat something of bread 
appearance than to "take the book and eat it up" 
meant that St. John should literally eat it, although 
he did say afterwards that he — 

Took the book from the hand of the angel, and eat it up ; and 
it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and when I had eaten it, 
my belly was bitter (Apoc. 10:10). 



140 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Here he states it in as plain language as it possibly 
could be expressed, that he eat the book. But would 
it not have been absurd had he literally eaten the book 
by chewing and swallowing its leaves and covers, 
when to "eat it" meant, according to Scripture phrase- 
ology, to read it, imbibe and assimilate its teachings 
and follow them by a mental act of the mind and will 
and by deeds, "good fruits?" Yes. 

But now it may be said that it was only a vision 
and there was no literal book to eat literally and it 
was therefore not absurd for him to have "eat it up" 
in vision. Granting it was only a vision and there 
was no literal book to eat, then could he not in vision 
have "read it" as well as he in vision "eat it up?'^ 
Yes. For it would have been just as easy to have said 
he "read it" as to say he "eat it up." Yet he says 
he "eat it up," which is just as clearly expressed an 
idea as to say, "eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and 
drink His blood," and the eating and drinking of them 
will be in your mouth "sweet as honey" and make your 
"belly bitter" and out of it "shall flow rivers of living 
waters." Why, then, take the one figuratively or 
metaphorically and the other literally, positively, when 
both expressions are recorded by the same person and 
the revelation in both is from the same Christ, and it 
would have been absurd had St. John literally "eat 
the book?" And if Christ here by the word "eat" did 
not mean a literal eating with the mouth, then why 
should His saying to "eat," in John 6 : 52-58, mean a 
literal eating with the mouth? Would it not be as 
absurd to eat the flesh of anyone or "feed upon his 
body," in order to have his spirit and life, as it would 
be to eat a book with the mouth in order to learn 
its contents and character, or to believe that when the 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 141 

Church says "this is an age fed on newspapers" 
(Papal Supremacy and InfallibiHty, Rev. Sydney F. 
Smith, S. J., p. i8), it means that the people now with 
their mouths literally eat, chew and swallow paper 
with printing on it, or "feed" upon newspapers as the 
Church would have us "feed upon the blessed body of 
Jesus?" Or, that when — 

Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople, deposed by Pope Theodore, 
wrote : "We nourish ourselves in common with the spiritual 
food which Christ prepared for us through your writings" (Re- 
ligious Unrest: The Way Out, James P. Lafferty, p. 28), 

that the people of that Paul's day eat the writings 
of anyone for spiritual nourishment? But it may be 
said common sense and understanding would tell us 
newspapers and spiritual writings are not to be eaten 
in order to assimilate their contents. Well, common 
sense and understanding also tell us it is not by eating 
literally the literal flesh and drinking the blood of 
anyone that we imbibe and assimilate, put on, his 
spirit and life, so that we may receive a reward from 
him. It is the same with putting on the "spirit and 
life" of Christ, so as to receive a reward, everlasting 
life, from Him. To me it is now as plain as day, and 
it would so appear to others did they only use a little 
common sense and thought. 

To "eat," then, as well as to "drink," according to 
Scripture phraseology, means to imbibe and assimilate 
certain things ; if a book, its teachings ; if a person, his 
spirit and life, by a mental act of the mind and will, 
not by a mouth-eating operation. Therefore, to "eat" 
Christ, "eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His 
blood," "he that eateth Me," etc., mean that we imbibe 
and assimilate Christ, that is. His "spirit and life," 



142 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

character and conduct, put Him on, by a mental act 
of the mind and will and by deeds — "going about 
doing good," just as one would with a book that was 
given one and one was told to "eat it up," devour it. 
And a person can be read as well as a book can be 
eat up. For occasionally one comes across such an 
expression as, "I have read him and I know what he 
is," although he was not literally read as one reads, 
"devours," consumes, a book, novel or magazine, 
simply meaning one has analyzed and observed his 
spirit and life_, character and conduct. 

It is the same with putting on Christ, eating Him. 
It means to imbibe and assimilate His spirit and life, 
character and teachings. And to know what they are 
we must go to the Gospel and writings of the Apostles 
and other inspired writings, or, as the Church would 
call it. Holy Writ. And had book-making in Christ's 
day been as easy and cheap as at present Christ would 
probably have written and published them Himself. 
And if He had. He would no doubt have told us to 
"take the book, and eat it up," just as He, through an 
angel, told St. John to "take the book, and eat it up," 
being an expression similar in meaning of operation 
or act as to "eat My flesh and drink My blood," that is, 
read Christ, His teachings, imbibe and assimilate 
them, as already stated a number of times. Now, is 
all that not plain, reasonable, comprehensible, con- 
sistent, involving no difficulties, contradictions and 
absurdities? 

For to take John 6:48-59 literally would be as 
absurd as to take Eze. 3: i or Apoc. 10: 9 literally and 
"eat the book," the Bible, with the mouth in order 
to "taste the good word of God" (Heb. 6:5). It 
would also bar from heaven children under twelve 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 143 

years of age, who died without ever having received 
Communion, "eat the flesh of the Son of Man." 

Christ explained to His disciples what it meant to 
**eat the flesh of the Son of Man," etc., when He said 
to them: 

It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. 
The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life (John 
vi. 64). 

That shows that to eat flesh literally, after a carnal 
manner, or even flesh veiled under another species, 
with the mouth "profiteth nothing," just as it would 
"profit nothing" were one to eat after a carnal manner 
the Bible in order to "taste the good word of God," 
or as it would have "profiteth nothing" had St. John 
after a carnal manner eat the book. And that explains 
why Christ, in explaining Himself to His disciples, did 
not tell them that He would one day give them His 
flesh and blood under the veils of bread and wine, but 
that His words meant "spirit and life," and that it 
would "profit nothing" to literally eat literal flesh, as 
it would "profit nothing" to literally "eat the book." 
But says the Church in an annotation to John 6:64: 

The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh separated from the 
spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his 
flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to 
say, man's natural and carnal apprehension (which refuses to be 
subject to the spirit, and words of Christ.) profit anything. But 
it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of 
Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his 
spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For 
if Christ's flesh had profiteth us nothing, he would never have 
taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. — Ibid. Are spirit 
and life. By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which 
you shall receive in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, 
in its very fountain. 



144 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

The Church in an annotation to verse 63, the one 
preceding the above, says : 

// then you shall see, etc. Christ, by mentioning his ascen- 
sion, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the 
truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time 
correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking 
his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know 
he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and 
consequently not suffer it to be, as they supposed, divided, man- 
gled and consumed upon earth. 

How, then, does one "eat the flesh of the Son of 
Man" if there is no real flesh, indeed, of His on earth, 
such as the Jews understood (John 6:53) He would 
give them to eat? And what is it, then^ that Catholics 
eat in Communion when they, as we saw, "feed 
upon the blessed body of Jesus," so that then the 
"blood of a God flows in their veins," if it is not "the 
living flesh of Christ, with His spirit, that is, with His 
soul and divinity?" Or does that which they eat and 
drink then merely represent the flesh and blood of 
that Christ who "should take His whole body living 
to heaven, and not suffer it to be divided, mangled, 
and consumed upon earth?" If so, then were not the 
Jews misled by Christ's repetition of eating His flesh, 
and where does the Real Presence of Christ "whole 
and entire", as He was when He spoke to the Jews, 
come in? And how does one "eat the flesh of the 
Son of Man," etc., if there is no real flesh, indeed, and 
no real blood, indeed, such as the Jews apparently 
understood they were to eat and drink, of Christ upon 
earth of which to partake? Does not the Church con- 
tradict herself and fall into difficulties in the teachings 
of those two annotations? Answer for yourself. 

Christ did indeed in John 6:63, 64 "correct" His 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 145 

disciples' "gross apprehension of eating His flesh and 
drinking His blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner," 
etc., and thereby made it plain to them that they were 
to receive the "spirit" (John 7:39), "by the hearing 
of faith" (Gal. 3:2), a mental operation of the mind 
and will, not by literally eating flesh of any kind, 
which would "profit nothing" towards the reception 
of the Spirit. He explained to them that the opera- 
tion was not through a literal mouth-eating act of 
eating His supposed flesh ; but that it must be by believ- 
ing (John 7:39), "by the hearing of faith" (Gal. 3:2), 
mental acts of the mind and will. That is why He 
said: 

It is the spirit that quickeneth (which St. Paul said is re- 
ceived "by the hearing of faith" — Gal. iii. 2, not a mouth-eating 
act) : the flesh (eaten with the mouth) profiteth nothing. The 
words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life (John vi. 64). 

How would you "eat" and "drink," put on, "spirit 
and life?" How would you "eat" and "drink" wisdom 
(Ecclus. 24:29)? Would you not do so through a 
mental act of the mind and will? Surely you would 
not do so by putting something into the mouth. Well, 
it is the same with receiving and putting on the 
"spirit" (John 7:39), drinking to quench the "thirst" 
(John 7:37), receiving the Spirit, "by the hearing of 
faith" (Gal. 3:2), putting on the "spirit and life" 
(John 6 : 64) of Christ, that is, in Scripture phrase- 
ology, to "eat the flesh of the Son of Man," etc. 
(John 6:54.) Is that plain to you now? Had I the 
power to express myself as some have then I could 
probably make that as plain and clear to the reader as 
it is to me now. Then the reader would plainly see 

the great error of the Church in the matter in question. 

10 



146 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Again, would Christ not be "divided and mangled'* 
according to the following, were it practiced now? 

The early Christians, especially in the time of persecution, 
did not receive holy communion as we do now, the priest laying 
the Sacred Host [God, as we saw] upon their tongue, but the 
Blessed Sacrament was laid on their hands, the priest saying at 
the same time the words: "Body of Christ," and the one who 
received it answered, "Amen." They then consumed ^ part of 
the Sacred Host [God] and wrapping the remainder [of God] in 
a white cloth, carried it home carefully, that they might quickly 
arm themselves with the bread of the strong, if the persecution 
should suddenly break out (Magazine, Tabernacle and Purgatory, 
February, 1906, p. 117. See also A History of the Mass, Rev. 
John O'Brien, A.M., pp. 375-377). 

Now, if part of the Sacred Host, which is supposed 
to be Christ-God, is "consumed" and the remainder 
carried home and eaten under certain circumstances, 
then would not Christ-God be "divided and mangled," 
His soul and divinity be driven out of His flesh, so 
that it could be digested, assimilated and flow in the 
veins of a communicant as "the blood of God;" just 
as a rabbit would be "divided and mangled" that had 
been caught by a dog, was partly eaten or "consumed" 
and the remainder carried home or hid in the ground 
to be eaten later by the dog, as dogs sometimes do 
with a rabbit? Yes. The Church, then, contradicts 
herself and falls into unanswerable difficulties in what 
she teaches, does she not? 

As we just saw, and as may be seen by the follow- 
ing, in the early days laymen were given the Sacred 
Host into their hands, and it was probably no sin to 
touch with their hands the Host, but now it is dif- 
ferent : 

It was customary during the first five or six centuries to 
place the Sacred Host in the hands of the communicant and let 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 147 

him communicate himself. ... It was abrogated about the 
beginning of the ninth century (A History of the Mass, Rev. 
O'Brien, pp. 375, 376). 

Since that time it has become a mortal sin to even 
touch the vessels supposed to contain the body and 
blood of Christ-God, unless one is a "cleric." 

So very particular is the Church regarding the respect that 
should be paid to the sacred vessels immediately concerned with 
the Holy Eucharist, that she forbids them, under pain of sin, to 
be touched by any one but a cleric. . . . Should any one 
wilfully touch the Chalice whilst it contains the Precious Blood, 
and not be at least in deacon's orders, all theologians hold that 
he would by so doing commit a mortal sin (Ibid., pp. 79, 80). 

Theologians, then, are not infallible, in what they 
**hold," or else God is changeable. For if He per- 
mitted Himself to be at one time touched by the hands 
of laymen, without its being a "mortal sin," and now 
it is a mortal sin to even touch the vessels supposed 
to contain Him, then He has changed, has He not? 
This supreme reverence that now attaches to so-called 
"sacred vessels" is the result of "the advance of the 
sacerdotal theory" and the doctrine of the Real Pres- 
ence, strongly developed since "about the beginning 
of the ninth century," when laymen were no longer 
permitted to touch the Sacred Host — except with their 
mouths and stomachs. 

Again, if the presence of Christ ceases as soon as 
the Host ceases "because of digestion," which is "about 
fifteen minutes after receiving," then of what use or 
benefit would that be to one who was martyred an 
hour or so after he communicated himself; for Christ 
would, then, no longer be with him? 

Again, did not "Christ's flesh profit us" when in 
the flesh He gave us the gospel of faith, repentance 



148 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

and hope of an everlasting life, and in His flesh, 
person, gave us a model after which to pattern our 
lives, and revealed to us the true character of God; 
just as the flesh of Columbus profited us, when in the 
flesh he discovered America? And so on with all men 
who in their flesh made discoveries and inventions, 
gave them to the world and made life for flesh, people 
to come, more pleasant and comfortable. For Christ, 
then, to take flesh did profit us, did it not, even though 
it was not to be eaten, "consumed," in Communion? 
Yes. A poor argument, then, of the Church to say 
that if to eat the flesh of Christ after a literal manner 
"profiteth us nothing. He would never have taken 
flesh for us?" Besides, how could we eat it, indeed, 
if He took "His whole body living to heaven?" It is 
a case of "now you do, and now you do not," eat His 
flesh. Or does transubstantiation really make new 
Christ-Gods on earth, with beginnings, beginning 
existence where the substances of bread and wine 
cease to be any longer bread and wine? 

Again, if we receive by faith in Communion the 
same flesh of Christ which He had "taken for us" and 
in which He "died for us," then is it not still after 
the manner of cannibalism to communicate, if what 
is eaten in Communion is really and indeed "the living 
flesh of Christ," under the veil of bread? 

The Church says further: 

Had Christ said my flesh is meat indeed, that is, my flesh is 
true food, and then my flesh profits nothing, He would have con- 
tradicted Himself (Mission Tracts, Rev. Thos. E. Sherman, S. J., 
pp. 55, 56). 

He would no more have contradicted Himself than 
St. Paul did when he said : 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 149 

And they who are in the flesh, cannot please God (Rom. 
viii. 9). 

But (for me) to abide still in the flesh, is needful for you 
(Phil. i. 24). 

''Flesh" in those cases has two meanings. It was 
the same when Christ used the word "flesh" in 
John 6:56 and 64. If you are able to discern the 
difference in the meaning of the word "flesh" as 
St. Paul used it, then you will also be able to discern 
the difference in the ways Christ used it, and will see 
that He would not "have contradicted Himself." 

Again, when the early Christians "consumed a 
part of the Sacred Host and carried the remainder of 
it home," and the "flesh of God is imperishable 
meat" — which then means they could not in reality 
"consume" God — did they divide God asunder into 
pieces or disjoint Him, which pieces would later, after 
the remainder of the Host had become "consumed," 
rejoin each other again as a jointed snake does that 
has been divided into parts? Or did they consume 
only "appearances" and leave the substance of God, 
supposed to underlie the "species," intact, undivided? 
If so, then how did they, "indeed," "eat the flesh of 
the Son of Man?" Think of that again when reading 
or hearing of a time when people "consumed a part of 
the Sacred Host and wrapped the remainder in a 
white cloth and carried it home" to be consumed later, 
and if a Sacred Host contains but one ego, mind and 
consciousness that are as indivisible without being 
destroyed as is man's ego, mind and consciousness. 

Surely, the doctrine of the Real Presence can not 
be true, in view of what we have noted. And John 6th, 
then, can not be taken in the literal sense even if the 
Jews did "at that time." And it is, then, no criterion 



150 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

for us to take John 6th in a literal, positive sense 
because the Jews, or even the Apostles at the time, 
may have understood Christ as speaking in the plain, 
obvious and literal sense and said: "How can this 
man give us his flesh to eat?" 

John 6th, then, does not support the Catholic 
doctrine of the Real Presence, does it? No, most 
plainly not. 



CHAPTER VI. 

The Church cites the following also in support of 
her doctrine of the Real Presence: 

The chalice of benediction, which we bless (Not transub- 
stantiate), is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And 
the bread, which we break, is it not partaking of the body of the 
Lord (1 Cor. x. 16) ? 

But if we read on, including verse 21, which says: 

You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of 
devils : you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of 
the table of devils, 

then it may be seen that the "chalice of benediction" 
and "the bread, which we break," signify or represent 
the Lord's table, His memorial of remembrance; just 
as the '^chalice of devils," and the "table of devils," 
signify or represent his banquet, and does not mean 
that they contain or there is inherent in them the 
''whole and entire" devil, upon whose bodies the 
heathens fed, so that then the "blood of a devil" 
flowed in their veins, as the "blood of a God" is sup- 
posed to flow in the veins of those who "partake of 
the table of the Lord," or who "feed upon His blessed 
body," as we already saw. 

For surely there is no transubstantiation of ma- 
terial substances, the "chalice of devils" and the things 
upon the "table of devils," into literal "whole and 
entire" living devil or devils ; just as there is no tran- 
substantiation, for instance, of the food and drink 

151 



152 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 

upon a banquet table of George Washington into 
George Washington, when a banquet is given to com- 
memorate his birthday. Yet we speak of it as George 
Washington's banquet or table, and anyone who had 
in any way offended against his memory, and should 
partake of the banquet, would bring "judgment to 
himself," even though the food and drink on the table 
do not veil the flesh and blood of Washington. The 
same is it with the "table of the Lord," of which we 
partake simply of blessed bread and wine, as they did 
at the Last Supper. And anyone who was not Christ- 
like in life, character and deeds, or who offended 
against the memory or person of Christ, would be 
unworthy to partake of it and would bring "judgment" 
or "condemnation" upon himself by partaking of it. 
In view of that, then, the citation of I Cor. lo : i6, as 
proof of a Real Presence of Christ in Communion 
bread and wine, does not prove it, does it? 

We have now examined the strong texts and argu- 
ments the Church makes use of in her attempt to 
prove that there is a Real Presence of Christ in the 
Eucharist, but found that they really do not support 
her doctrine, and found she greatly erred in the matter 
in question. But now it may be asked, if the Church, 
which claims to have been established by Christ, has 
erred in so important a doctrine as the one in ques- 
tion, then : 

Does it seem reasonable that He, if He is a lover of souls, 
should let His Church fall into so great an error, or, how can He 
escape just censure and impeachment for letting her fall into so 
great an error? 

Well, probably as reasonable and for somewhat like 
reasons that He let the Jewish Church, which He 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 153 

established, and the Jews, His one time "chosen 
people," whose souls He no doubt also loved, become 
"blind, and leaders of the blind" (Matt. 15:14), fall 
into idolatry, which Christ, as we saw, came to 
abolish, and fall into the error of wrongly interpreting 
the prophecies pertaining to their promised Messiah, 
so that when He did come they instead of seeing He 
was the Messiah and accepting Him, they rejected 
Him and crucified Him las a "seducer," guilty of "blas- 
phemy" (Matt. 26:65, 66). It may have been for 
somewhat like reasons, which caused the Jewish 
Church to fall into error and idolatry, that God let 
the Church, her spiritual directors and teachers, who 
are supposed to be "infallible teachers of authority," 
become "blind, and leaders of the blind" and fall into 
the error of misinterpreting certain passages of Scrip- 
ture; just as did the Jewish Church, her high priests 
and "rulers of the synagogue," who were supposed to 
have been preserved from error in the interpretation 
of Scripture and were "therefore infallible teachers" 
(Doctrinal Catechism, Rev. S. Keenan, pp. 369, 370; 
The Faith of Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons, pp. 118; 
119), fall into error concerning their belief about the 
"promised Son of David" and the prophecies con- 
cerning Him. And the Jews and their high priests 
were just »as much the people of God as the Catholics 
and their Popes may be. 

That the Catholic Church, which now teaches the 
doctrine of the Real Presence, has departed from the 
teachings and belief of the Apostles is evident from 
the fact that the Apostles' Creed, formulated by them, 
"which it is necessiary to believe unto salvation" (The 
Real Presence, Rev. C F. Smarius, p. 24), and which 
is supposed to present "a complete summary of 



154 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Catholic doctrine" (Essentials and Non-Essentials of 
the Catholic Religion, Rev. H. G. Hughes, p. 31), does 
not mention or even intimate the doctrine. Yet their 
Creed mentions that Christ was "born of the Virgin 
Mary, sufifered under Pontius Pilate," "descended into 
hell," the "communion of saints, the forgiveness of 
sin, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting," 
things which are not of any more, if of as much, 
importance to man's belief, right living and salvation 
than is that of the doctrine of the Real Presence, a 
doctrine which, with its concomitants, the Church has 
made the center and "keystone" of her teachings and 
devotions. Had the Apostles believed in the doctrine 
of the Real Presence and had regarded it as the 
"central dogma" of their faith, as the Church does 
now, they would without doubt have incorporated it 
in their profession of faith or Creed about as follows: 

I believe in the presence of the Lord in blessed bread and 
wine; or, I believe in the mystical presence of Christ in the 
bread and wine of the Lord's Supper; or I believe in the real 
presence of Christ, with His body and blood. Soul and Divinity 
in the consecrated bread and wine. 

But the fact that they did not incorporate in their 
Creed such a belief makes it very self-evident they did 
not believe in the doctrine. That is the only way to 
account for it; for they were courageous and did not 
fear to "declare all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). 
Neither did St. Paul mention or intimate the doctrine 
in Heb. 6:1, 2, where he, as it were, recapitulated 
what they taught, enumerated "the fundamental truths 
of Christianity" (The Faith of Our Fathers, Cardinal 
Gibbons, p. 321). 

The Church would have us now believe that the 
"Discipline of the Secret" (A History of the Mass,'' 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 155 

Rev. O'Brien, p. 247) forbade the doctrine to be taught 
openly up to the sixth century, so as not to expose 
it "to public ridicule or misinterpretation" (Plain Facts 
For Fair Minds, Rev. G. M. Searle, pp. 62, 87), as 
though the doctrine of the Resurrection was not ridi- 
culed, "mocked" (Acts 17: 32) in the days of the Apos- 
tles. That therefore "the early fathers say little or noth- 
ing about the Real Presence of our Lord in- the Holy 
Eucharist" (A History of the Mass, Rev. O'Brien, p. 
247), and that that may be a reason for its not being 
incorporated in the Apostles' Creed. But the "Discipline 
of the Secret" extended to other doctrines as well. 
Why, then, did the Apostles write a Creed at all? Or 
why mention the "resurrection of the body," when it 
was ridiculed, "mocked," in their day? And if they 
wrote a Creed and kept it secret in their day, could 
they not have incorporated in it the doctrine of the Real 
Presence, just as they did that of the Resurrection, 
had they believed in it? Yes. But their silence on it 
makes it very self-evident they did not believe in it 
nor teach it. That is why their Creed does not 
mention or intimate the doctrine. 

But it may be said that the doctrine is implied in 
that part of the Creed which says: "I believe in the 
holy Catholic Church," that to believe in her means 
believing in all that she teaches, and that, therefore, 
it was not necessary to specifically mention the doc- 
trine of the Real Presence. If that is the case, then 
why write a long Creed at all? Why not just simply 
say: "I believe in the holy Catholic Church?" For 
that, then, would imply believing "in God the Father 
Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in 
Jesus Christ," and in everything she teaches. 

Just when the erroneous doctrine of the Real Pres- 



156 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

ence crept into the Christian Church may probably 
never be definitely known. But it seems to have crept 
in in some vague and varying form soon after the 
death of the Apostles, just like the Galatians already 
in St. Paul's day became "bewitched" into believing 
that the spirit was to be received ''by the works of 
the law," instead of *'by the hearing of faith" (Gal. 
3:1, 2), and appears to have been introduced as a Eu- 
charistic rite in some places by early Church Fathers, 
as a concession to the pagan converts to Christianity, 
who had been accustomed to a eucharistic rite of one 
kind or another while they were pagans, to satisfy 
them that they had not lost anything materially or 
essential by giving up paganism. That is no doubt 
how and when the error crept into the Christian 
Church, which error in time, by the development of 
rites and ceremonies, became the "center of the Chris- 
tian life" of the Roman Catholic Church, her "most 
important doctrine," "keystone of worship," etc. For 
according to the following the Host or Eucharist and 
sacrifice is of "pagan origin," so that by surrounding 
it with "mysteries" it could in time be developed into 
"a God" and a sacrifice, in the Church : 

According to Durandus, the word "host" as applied to the 
consecrated wafer is of pagan deriviation. It comes from the 
word hostio, to strike, referring to the victim offered to the gods 
after a victory. This word is also used in the Bible in the sense 
of representing the matter or victim of the sacrifice. The ap- 
plication of the word "host" to the Blessed Sacrament came into 
general use about the tenth century (The Sacred Heart Union, 
Rev. Thomas J. Moran, January, 1908, p. 7). 

The "tenth century" is characterized by historians 
as a part of the so-called "Dark Ages." It is the cen- 
tury following the one when laymen were no longer 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 157 

given the Host in their hands to communicate them- 
selves, and when it became a mortal sin to 'VilfuUy 
touch the Chalice v^hilst it contains the precious 
blood/' unless one is "at least in deacon's orders." 

In view, then, of all that we have noted, it may 
easily be perceived that the doctrine of the Real Pres- 
ence is a manifest error, etc., it being simply the sub- 
stitution of the Eucharistic "a God" made, as we 
saw, "out of a piece of bread," by "the word of a 
priest," for the pagan gods of wood, stone or metal. 

It is said that the prophet Daniel proved to the 
pagans that the dragon was not a god, by making a 
composition of tar, tow, etc., giving it to the dragon 
to eat and by eating it it was killed. And of course 
the pagans could no longer believe that anything that 
could die was a god. Can it not likewise be said that 
the Eucharist is not a God, if rats can eat it, fire can 
consume it and "natural heat" and digestion can de- 
stroy it, or make His presence to cease? 

As the Eucharist, then, is not the "living God," but 
only a piece of blessed bread, then it also makes it, 
notwithstanding the Church's denial (The Real Pres- 
ence, Rev. Smarius, pp. ;^6, ^y), a species of pagan 
idoltary and superstition to adore and worship it as 
God, as the Church does in Mass; in Forty-Hour De- 
votion ; in Perpetual Adoration, which requires for 
each such adoration a yearly expenditure for candles 
alone of $2,555 (Magazine, Perpetual Adoration, 1905,. 
p. 2) ; in Corpus Christi, and other, processions ; in 
Benediction; etc. And the only real difference there 
seems to be between the way Catholics treat their God 
and the pagans their god, is that the former eat their 
God while the latter feed theirs, that is, they place 
food before their god, which the pagan priests sneak 



158 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

out of the temple during the night, eat and then make 
their blind, credulous, unthinking and superstitious 
followers believe their god ate it (Dan. 14: 10-14). 
That is about all the real difference there is between 
Catholic idoltary and pagan idoltary; the Catholics 
eat their God, while the pagans feed theirs. And is 
that not true if in Communion God is "our food" (How 
to Make the Mission, a Dominican Father, p. 118); 
that is, when Catholics "feed upon the blessed body 
of Jesus," God, so that then the "blood of a God flows 
in their veins?" 

That there is no Real Presence in the Eucharist, 
and that it is, therefore, not Supernatural, may be 
known by its effects upon those who receive it; for 
"by their fruits you shall know them," or what things 
really are. 

The Church teaches the following about the effi- 
cacy of Communion: 

It confers actual grace and preserves us from mortal sin. 
... By the grace of Holy Communion we shall be enabled to 
subdue our passions, to conquer our evil inclinations (A Pious 
Preparation for First Holy Communion, Rev. F. X. Lasance, pp. 
336, 342). 

At its table unfortunate creatures degraded by sensuality, are 
changed into angels of chastity. — Rt. Rev. Nicholas C. Matz 
(Catholic Register, January 19, 1906). 

The Church teaches that as the body is nourished by food, so 
really is the soul made strong in virtue and holiness by the sac- 
ramental presence of Jesus Christ (Tract, The Gospel Church, 
Catholic Book Exchange, p. 5). 

But how can He make one "strong in virtue and 
holiness" by His "sacramental presence," if His "sacra- 
mental presence" lasts only "about fifteen minutes,'' 
when He takes His leave because of the destruction 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 159 

by "natural heat" of the ''species?" Another diffi- 
culty, eh? 

Fortified with Communion, we can persevere on the way of 
the commandments of God, and make the journey to our heav- 
enly country without difficulty (Short Sermons for Low Masses, 
Rev. F. Heffner, p. 59). 

Communion is not that bread which changes into the sub- 
stance of man, but that which changes man even into the same 
substance as God (Catholic Ceremonies, Abbe Durand, p. 84). 

The following are what Catholic writers have to 
say about the morals of Catholics at certain times : 

In ancient times, when the male portion of the congregation 
was separated from the female portion, thfe kiss of peace went 
through the entire church; and this discipline continued, with 
little interruption, up to the time of Pope Innocent III. — that is, 
until the thirteenth century — when, on account of the increasing 
depravity of morals (Italics are mine.), and from other causes, it 
was deemed prudent to discontinue the practice (A History of 
The Mass, Rev. John O'Brien, A. M., pp. 364, 365). 

What we now call "graft" was a pretty common abuse in 
Luther's time. It was perhaps almost as bad then as it is to-day. 
But it was a much greater scandal than it is now, because many 
persons guilty of it were churchmen, and not merely city or state 
officials. The crime of simony, that is selling sacred things for 
money or its equivalent, has often been a plague to the Church. 
It has done an immense amount of harm, chiefly by getting un- 
worthy men into sacred offices (Luther, Rev. Charles Coppens» 
p. 12). 

Luther threw open monasteries and convents, and gave leave 
to the monks and nuns to marry. . . . Finally, he broke the 
vow of chastity which he had solemnly made as a monk and as a 
priest, and committed the double sacrilege of taking a nun for his 
wife (The Faith That Never Dies, or The Priest of God in the 
Catholic Home, p. 501). 

What was the Council of Trent but a great reforming tri- 
bunal. Most of its decrees are directed to the reformation of 
abuses among the clergy and the laity, and the salutary fruits of 
its legislation are reaped even to this day. ... It cannot be 



160 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

denied that corruption of morals prevailed in the sixteenth cen- 
tury to such an extent as to call for a sweeping reformation, and 
that laxity of discipline invaded even the sanctuary (The Faith 
of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, pp. 47, 48). 

Bishop Robert of Strassburg (d. 1478) never celebrated 
Mass, but was accustomed to receive Communion on Holy Thurs- 
day, in order to comply with his Easter duty — So as not to be ex- 
communicated (The Eve of The Reformation, Part 1, Rev. Wil- 
liam Stang, p. 61). 

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Boucher (died 1486), 
. . . held diocesan visitations, and in a pastoral letter de- 
nounced abuses among his clergy. . . Cardinal John 
Morton (d. 1500), Archbishop of Canterbury, . . . made ef- 
forts in promoting ecclesiastical discipline among the clergy, 
whom he strictly forbade of entering taverns, "censuring a cus- 
tom they had adopted of so arranging their hair as to conceal 
their tonsure, and of otherwise wearing their garments so as to 
prevent them from being distinguished from the laity" (Ibid., pp. 
69, 81). 

(That partly sheds light on how it was possible for 
a king to separate England from the Roman Catholic 
Church.) 

We will readily grant that a reformation in the lives of many 
unworthy churchmen of the day (The Sixteenth Century) was 
imperatively needed, and that unless many Catholics of the period 
had been living most corrupt lives, they never would have aban- 
doned the Church (Question-Box Answers, Rev. B. L. Conway, 
p. 133). 

Yet say that Christ in Communion "transforms us 
into Himself"— Bishop Hedley (Ave Maria, September 
26, 1908, p. 402). 

I could quote more Catholic writers on the morals 
of Catholics, but what I have quoted must suffice. 
Here is "what was the religion of all Europe at the 
time Luther was born," which was near the begin- 
ning of the sixteenth century: 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 161 

All believed what the Catholics believe at the present time 
(Doctrinal Catechism, Rev. Stephen Keenan, p. 15). 

According to the foregoing, the belief of the re- 
ligious people prior to the Reformation of the six- 
teenth century, which is the belief of the Church and 
her members at the present time, was, that the recep- 
tion of the Eucharist in Communion would "preserve 
us from mortal sin," enable us "to subdue our pas- 
sions," changes "unfortunate creatures degraded by 
sensuality into angels of chastity," that it makes the 
soul "strong in virtue and holiness," that "fortified 
with it, we can persevere on the way of the command- 
ments of God," that it "changes man even into the 
same substance as God," and that in Communion 
Christ "transforms us into Himself." But do the 
Catholic writings from which I have just quoted bear 
out those claims the Church makes for the efficacy of 
Communion? No. That, then, makes it very self- 
evident that there is no Real Presence in the Eucharist 
and that it is not Supernatural, but is only a piece 
of blessed bread; just as the bread on a dining table 
is blessed bread, over which one has asked God's bless- 
ing by saying grace. 

By the quotations given of Catholic writers, it 
^ may also be seen that not only is the Eucharist not 
Supernatural, but that the Mass, Catholic Sacraments 
and Sacramentals are also not Supernatural nor chan- 
nels of Supernatural and sanctifying graces, as the 
Church claims. For if they were so then they would 
and should have prevented such "increasing depravity 
of morals," "corruption of morals," "most corrupt 
lives," "graft," etc., as prevailed when "the religion of 
all Europe was Catholic." Is that not so? Yes. And 

that moral corruptions, etc., must have been some- 

11 



162 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

thing most appalling at the time of the Reformation 
of the sixteenth century, may be known from the fact 
that whole provinces fell away from the Roman Catho- 
lic Church in very short spaces of time. For such a 
thing would not now take place even though a bright, 
magnetic and prominent churchman, though he were 
a Cardinal, left the Church. He might induce and 
influence a few here and there to leave the Church, 
but for whole provinces or the majority of his parish 
or diocese to leave the Church, or for monks and nuns 
in large numbers to leave their cloisters and marry, 
would be entirely out of the question. Must not, then, 
the "corruption of morals," etc., have been something 
most appalling at the time of the Reformation of the 
sixteenth century when whole provinces; yea, the 
majority of a great kingdom, and monks and nuns in 
large numbers, left the Church? Yes. What, then, 
does that prove? Does it not prove that the Eucharist, 
the Mass, the Catholic Sacraments and Sacramentals 
are most evidently not Supernatural nor channels of 
sanctifying graces, and that the Spirit must be received 
"by the hearing of faith" — words of truth? 

"By their fruits you shall know them" — the Eucha- 
rist, the Mass, etc. 

In one of the quotations we saw that simony "has 
done an immense amount of harm, chiefly by getting 
unworthy men into sacred offices." Yet the Church 
would have us believe that God chooses and calls 
"men into sacred offices." If that is so, then why is 
it that the Popes, as a rule, were Italians, and the 
present Pope Pius X. is an Italian? It is not because 
God chooses the Pope, but because in the electoral 
college, which elects the Pope, the majority are 
Italians, as may be seen by the following: 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 163 

The recent death of Cardinal Cretoni [An Itahan], reduces 
the number of Cardinals to fifty-four. . . . Thirty-two of the 
Cardinals are Italians, the remaining twenty-two being divided 
throughout the Catholic world (The Catholic Register, March 5, 
1909). 

The highest number of Cardinals of any one nation, 
outside of Italy, is "six in Austria-Hungary." That 
puts the Italian Cardinals way in the majority, and 
you can rest assured that they will always vote for 
an Italian for Pope, and the living Pope will always 
see to it that the Italian Cardinals will be in the ma- 
jority in the electoral college at his death; for the 
Pope appoints the Cardinals. That is no doubt also 
the reason why America, with about fifteen million 
Catholics, has at present but one Cardinal, while Italy, 
with about twice as many Catholics as America, has 
thirty-two times as many Cardinals as America has. 
It is not God, then, who chooses the Pope, is it? No. 
For if He did, then is it possible that no man in Ameri- 
ca, England, France, Germany, Ireland or Austria- 
Hungary ever is devout, spiritual, intelHgent and learned 
enough to be chosen to the office of the Papacy, so 
that God must always choose an Italian? 

In mentioning why the Popes, a/s a rule, are 
Italians, I do not want it understood that I would in- 
sinuate that they use "graft" in order to secure the 
office of the Papacy. I just mentioned it to show why, 
as a rule, the Popes have been Italians. For I used to 
wonder why, until I made the discovery why Italians 
have been the Popes. And perhaps you have won- 
dered, too. 

Now back to where we digressed. The reason 
why Catholics in this country now live lives of a 
higher moral standard than the Catholics did when 



164 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

"the religion of all Europe was Catholic," is because 
of the fear of criticism of their conduct by Protest- 
ants, some of whom live lives of "a high moral stand- 
ard" (Catholic Belief, Very Rev. Joseph Faa Di Bruno., 
p. i6o), and it is not because of the supposed Super- 
natural character of the Eucharist, the Mass, etc., that 
Catholics make frequent use of, that makes them live 
fives of a higher moral standard than the Catholics did 
prior to the Reformation. 

That it is a fact that the fear of Catholics as to 
what Protestants might say or think of their conduct 
has some influence or acts as a restraint on it, I will 
show by an incident. One Sunday afternoon, during 
Lent, a priest in the country, at the home of one of 
his parishioners, was playing cards with them. While 
they were playing some Protestant neighbors came 
to make a call. When their coming was announced 
the priest said to those with whom he had been play- 
ing cards: 

Hurry up, and put away the cards before they (the callers) 
see them; for what would Protestants think of us if they saw 
or knew we had been playing cards, and especially on Sunday, 
and in Lent. 

(In Lent Catholics are supposed to "mortify" 
themselves and make "reparation" for the sins of the 
past year, by denying themselves and shunning amuse- 
ments of about all kinds.) 

And other Catholics will say : "What will Protest- 
ants say if I did this or that?" And thus that thought 
restrains some from doing things they otherwise would 
do. With many of them it is not, "What would God 
say?" but "What would Protestants say?" By that., 
then, it may be seen that the fear of criticism of their 
conduct by Protestants has some bearing or influence 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 165 

on the conduct of Catholics, and no doubt vice versa, 
and which no doubt to some extent is what makes 
some Catholics now live lives of "a high moral stand- 
ard," and that it is not due to the attendance at Mass, 
the reception of the Eucharist and the use of Sacra- 
mentals. And this fear of criticism of conduct by Pro- 
testants was lacking when "the religion of all Europe 
was Catholic." That is or was the reason why there 
was such "corruption of morals," "increasing depravity 
of morals," etc., among the Catholics who lived prior 
to the Reformation of the sixteenth century. No other 
cause or reason than that can be given; for those 
Catholics had the same kind of Masses, Sacraments 
and Sacramentals that Catholics now have, who live 
lives of a higher moral standard than the Catholics 
did when "the religion of all Europe" was Catholic. 
Is that not a fair and reasonable inference and deduc- 
tion? Yes. 

"By their fruits you shall know them" — the Eucha- 
rist, the Mass, Catholic Sacraments and Sacramentals. 
Sacramentals are Holy Water, Blessed Medals, Scapu- 
lars, Candles, etc., and are distinguished in their effects 
from the Sacraments as follows: 

The Sacraments effect immediately inward sanctification, 
whereas the Sacramentals, by imparting subordinate graces, only 
contribute towards it, and protect us also from temporal evils 
(Deharbe's Catechism No. 1, p. 308). 

And they — 

Have to be filled with a strange undefinable power by ecclesi- 
astical benediction (All For Jesus, Father Faber, p. 111). 

For further proof that there is nothing Super- 
natural or sanctifying about the Eucharist, is the fact 
that St. Peter denied our Lord the very night he had 



166 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

supposedly received Christ, or rather two Christs, in 
Communion at the Last Supper. And if Communion 
direct from the hands of Christ Himself did not "pre- 
serve" St. Peter from the "mortal sins" of lying, curs- 
ing, swearing (Mark 14:68-71) and denying our Lord, 
then that is conclusive and positive proof there is 
nothing Supernatural about the Eucharist, that there 
is no Real Presence of Christ in it, but that it is only 
as so much blessed bread and wine, as Communion 
bread and wine are regarded in most of the "Protest- 
ant communions." 

The best illustration that can be used to show there 
is nothing Supernatural about the Eucharist, the Mass, 
etc., is that of a priest who falls in love with his house- 
keeper, and in time marries her. Of course, it may 
be said that priests are as human as other people, have 
the same kind of weaknesses and temptations to con- 
tend with that other people have, and that, therefore, 
my illustration is not the best that can be used. Grant- 
ing that priests are human and have the same kind of 
weaknesses, passions and temptations that other people 
have, should they not, above all others, be less con- 
trolled by them than others are, if there is any truth 
to the claims the Church makes for the Mass, Sacra- 
ments, etc? Yes. 

Before proceeding with the illustration, we will 
look at a few more of the claims the Church makes 
for Communion. 

The most chaste flesh of Jesus keeps down the rebellion of 
our flesh, as St. Cyril of Alexandria taught, "For Christ abiding 
in us lulls to sleep the law of the flesh which rages in our mem- 
bers" (God With Us : Letter From Pope Leo XHL on the Most 
Holy Eucharist, p. 15). 

Will "about fifteen minutes" of Christ's "abiding 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 167 

in us" once a month or quarterly or yearly "lull to 
sleep the law of the flesh which rages in our mem- 
bers?" If so, then should it not more effectively "lull 
to sleep the law of the flesh which rages" in a priest 
who daily has "about fifteen minutes" the abiding 
presence of Christ supposedly in him? 

Bear in mind also that the fruits of your Communion do not 
depend solely on your own efforts (Frequent and Daily Com- 
munion, Father Lintelo, S. J., p. 34). 

Communion is intended to give us strength to fight Christ's 
battles^ irrespective of our weakness — Rev. John H, O'Rourke, S. 
J. (Messenger of the Sacred Heart, June, 1909, p. 350). 

The oftener a person communicates, the more I operate in 
him and he in Me, and his works will be made great — Our Lord 
to St. Mechtildis (Tabernacle and Purgatory, May, 1906, p. 6). 

Go to Communion frequently. . . . He will sustain you in 
your conflicts with the devil (How to Make The Mission, a 
Dominican Father, p. 40). 

It is above all the remedy against concupiscence. Every day 
in Holy Mass the Church proclaims this healing power which be- 
longs to the Flesh of our divine Lord. . . . Doctors of the 
Church have vied with each other in teaching that it is not more 
natural for water to extinguish fire, than for the Body of Christ 
to appease in our souls the heat of concupiscence, and what would 
our Lord do in the soul to which He unites Himself, if, above 
all, He did not give it the love of purity, and the strength to 
practice it? (Frequent and Daily Communion, Rev. Lintelo, 
p. 21). 

And if it were certain that in time the Eucharistic food would 
be more frugally used we should hasten to fortify those tem- 
peraments most exposed to weakness, degeneration and death by 
giving them, while we may, a powerful dose of the Bread of Life. 
— About Frequent Communion of Children (Sentinel of the 
Blessed Sacrament, December, 1907, p. 379). 

The most efficacious, the most inexhaustible remedy for this 
concupiscence, the febrifuge that lessens its assaults, the powerful 
tonic that strengthens against its attack, is very frequent Com- 
munion. It diminishes concupiscence and represses the passions. 



168 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Holy Communion, by that very fact, preserves from mortal sin, 
of which they are the direct cause (Ibid., August, 1906, p. 236). 

In view of those quotations, there seems to be no 
possible excuse for any priest, who communicates 
daily, ever to fall in love with a woman, sometimes 
getting her into a family way and then have to marry 
her. Now for the illustration: A boy is placed in a 
college, spending his vacations there, at about twelve 
years of age, or at least before the age of puberty, 
to study for the priesthood. He sprinkles himself daily 
with Holy Water, which is believed will protect us — 

In all dangers of soul and body (Deharbe's Catechism No. 1, 
p. 310). And— 

The Church employs it in the most solemn religious cere- 
monies. This water, through the blessings of the Church, is 
possessed of most singular and efficacious virtues. It has the 
property of purifying everything it touches, and banishing 
demons, and destroying the evil influences that dwell in the air 
and surround our habitation (Benedictine Parish Monthly, De- 
cember, 1909, p. 8). 

He is enrolled in at least one Scapular, 

Which would be to him and to all who carried it, a badge of 
the Blessed Virgin's special protection (Goffine, Rev. Leonard 
Goffine, p. 799). 

He received in due time his First Communion, and 
was confirmed. 

Confirmation increases sanctifying grace in us; gives us the 
Holy Ghost, to enable us to fight against evil and to grow in 
virtue (Deharbe's Catechism No. 1, p. 254). 

Received in his ordination the Sacrament of Holy 
Orders, 

Which communicates to those who receive it the full power of 
Priesthood, together with a special grace to discharge their sacred 
duties well (Ibid., p. 298). 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 169 

One of the "sacred duties" is to keep the vow of 
perpetual chastity, or celibacy, which all candidates 
for the priesthood make. 

After he was ordained a priest he said Mass, for 
which he put on sacred vestments, and while putting 
them on said: 

Gird me, O Lord, with the cincture of purity and extinguish in 
my loins the fire of concupiscence, that the virtue of continence 
and chastity may abide in me (Benedictine Parish Monthly^ 
October, 1909, p. 8). 

In saying Mass daily, of which the Church says : 

The Holy Mass obtains for us all graces and blessings, tem- 
poral and spiritual (Reasonableness of Catholic Ceremonies and 
Practices, Rev. J. J. Burke, p. 22), 

he communicated under both forms, virtually receiving 
double Communion — two Christ-Gods — which is cer- 
tainly receiving "a powerful dose of the Bread of Life," 
which is supposed to effect or produce the results men- 
tioned already. 

Surely all that should have always kept down, sub- 
dued, lulled, repressed his passions of love and sexual 
feelings for woman, were there such supernatural 
graces and sanctifying efficacies in them as the Church 
claims. In fact, they should have, as it were, made him 
in feeling as a eunuch, should have completely unman- 
ned him in his feelings, passions and desires for the 
opposite sex. The housekeeper was also a good and 
devout Catholic when she went to keep house for him ; 
for no other kind is usually given to the occupation of 
keeping house for priests. Now does not such a case 
of breaking the vows of perpetual chastity, or celibacy 
— of which there were getting to be so many that in 
some dioceses regulations have been made that no 



170 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

woman under a certain age, unless she is a blood rela- 
tive of the priest, can be his housekeeper, completely 
shatter the teachings of the Church that Communion — 

Keeps down the rebellion of our flesh; lulls to sleep the law 
of the flesh which rages in our members; gives us strength to 
fight Christ's battles ; will make our works great ; will sustain you 
in your conflicts with the devil — passions, instincts and desires — ; 
is above all the remedy against concupiscence; appeases in our 
souls the heat of concupiscence ; gives the soul the love of purity, 
and the strength to practice it; fortifies those temperaments most 
exposed to weakness, the most efficacious remedy for this con- 
cupiscence, the powerful tonic that strengthens against its attack; 
diminishes concupiscence and represses the passions, and pre- 
serves from mortal sin? 

And surely if anyone receives "a powerful dose of 
th Bread of Life," to "sustain him in his conflicts with 
the devil" — procreative passions, it is a priest who 
says Mass daily and communicates at each one, even 
communicating three times on Christmas, when he 
says, or is supposed to say, three Masses. 

Yet of the priests who leave the Church, even 
though they leave for apparent causes other than 
*'cherchez la femme," the Church invariably says it 
was because of "cherchez la femme" (Catholic Regis- 
ter, 1908), or, "women and wme are usually at the 
bottom of such deplorable downfalls" (Ibid.), or, "the 
woman in the case is evident," or, "apostate Priests 
as a class are abandoned men and slaves of sensuality" 
(Truth, May, 1906, p. 15), even though some may leave 
the Church on account of "Modernism" (Catholic Reg- 
ister, 1908), or some other reason than "cherchez la 
femme." The more, then, that the Church stigmatizes 
her ex-priests with that of "cherchez la femme," etc., 
the more does it prove my claim that there is abso- 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 171 

lutely nothing Supernatural nor sanctifying about the 
Eucharist, the Mass, Catholic Sacraments and Sacra- 
mentals, and that they are only make-believes, etc., 
and that the Spirit must be received "by the hearing 
of faith." The further fact that unmarried Catholic 
men and women, who go to Mass only on Sundays 
and holy days, and communicate only monthly, or 
quarterly, and members of Protestant churches, live 
without "sexual commerce" (Webster), proves that it 
is not Communion that makes them live thus. For if 
it were, then no priest should ever fall on account of 
^'cherchez la femme," for priests receive Communion 
daily, and no unmarried Protestant man or woman 
could live without "sexual commerce," but which 
they do. 

"By their fruits you shall know them." 
As I am not an ex-priest, nor ever studied for the 
priesthood, nor was married and wanted an annul- 
ment by the Church of the marriage so that I could 
marry another woman, the charge of "cherchez la 
femme" cannot be brought against me as a reason for 
my becoming a non-Catholic and leaving the Church. 
Another proof that the Eucharist is not Super- 
natural, nor Communion a channel of sanctifying 
graces, is the fact that children are no better after 
having received their First Communion than they were 
before they received it ; for the older they become the 
more hardened sinners many of them become. The 
one thing in the Church that does more to restrain her 
members from committing sin than all else in the 
Church put together is Confession, as may be inferred 
from the following: 

The very thought of having to tell Father Francis (in the 
confessional) keeps us from doing many things we otherwise 



172 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

would do. — A Catholic Girl to a Protestant at a Convent (Within 
and Without the Fold, Minnie Mary Lee, p. 161). 

It is, then, not an inner sanctification or "inward 
grace" derived from the reception of Communion that 
"preserves from mortal sin," but the fear and thought 
of having to tell their sins to a priest in the confes- 
sional that restrains Catholics from doing "many 
things they otherwise would do." 

The reason Confession did not prevent "increasing 
depravity of morals," and the "corruption of morals," 
when the "religion of all Europe" was Catholic, was, 
because, as we saw, "laxity of discipline invaded even 
the sanctuary," "graft" and "abuses among the 
clergy." Penitents, then, knowing that their Confes- 
sors were to some extent likewise as guilty of like 
sins as they, would not fear to confess "many things 
they otherwise would not do." That is why, when 
the "religion of all Europe" was Catholic, and "laxity 
of discipline invaded even the sanctuary," etc., that 
Confession was no longer — 

The greatest bulwark against wickedness the world ever knew 
(Question-Box Answers, Rev. B. L. Conway, p. 153), 

and why there was an "increasing depravity of 
morals," why "corruption of morals pt;evailed," and 
why "many Catholics of the period were living most 
corrupt lives." There are always causes for such 
things, if we only knew them, and we know now what 
they were. 

If the following are true, then it seems there would 
be no need of going to Confession to a priest; for it 
should be far better to confess direct to Christ-God, 
if we have sinned against Him : 

Our Lord Jesus Christ has not left us. He is always in the 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 173 

Blessed Sacrament in person, just as He formerly was in Pal- 
estine (Perpetual Adoration, 1908, p. 8). 

The Blessed Eucharist secures for us, first of all, the abiding 
presence of Christ in our midst; and this is in itself a blessing 
for which we can never thank Him sufficiently. . .' . That 
Jesus of Nazareth is as truly present with us as He was with the 
Jews of old [Must, then, ])e after the manner of cannibalism to 
communicate]. Every Catholic church is His house. There upon 
the altar, in the dark and lonely Tabernacle, He dwells in as 
true sense as we dwell in our own houses. There we can ap- 
proach Him as could His own disciples when He dwelt visibly 
among men. He is there present for the same purpose that in- 
duced Him to traverse the country of Palestine : — to do good to 
all. His house is always open to us : it is the house of the best of 
fathers, the house of the truest of friends; where sympathy and 
encouragement are always bestowed by the hand that knows how 
to bless. His delight is to be with the children of men, and to 
gladden their hearts with the sunshine of His love (The Sacra- 
mental Life of The Church, Rev. Bernard J. Otten, S. J., pp. 
116, 117). 

Jesus Christ Himself said to His Apostles before leaving 
them and to all the faithful succeeding them: "I will not leave 
you orphans." and in the Holy Reserve of the Eucharist this same 
Master and Savior truly abides with us. He is our God and 
Father and His delight is to be with the children of men (Sen- 
tinel of The Blessed Sacrament, January, 1908, p. 15). 

This promise of our Lord, "Behold, I am with you all days, 
even to the consummation of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20), given 
for the solace and support of Christianity, has been fulfilled for 
nearly nineteen centuries. Christ abides with us in the sacred 
seclusion of the Tabernacle, really and actually. His sovereign 
majesty is veiled under the appearance of a wafer; but His divine 
power, His infinite goodness, is felt by the Christian, who in full 
faith and confidence kneels at the foot of the altar to adore the 
Blessed Sacrament. . . . Jesus in the Adorable Sacrament of 
the Altar calls to us, encouraging some by His favors, admonish- 
ing others by His chastisements (Tabernacle and Purgatory, 
August, 1905, p. 49). 

In order to see this King of kings it is not necessary to crave 
or prearrange an audience. We may come to Him at any time, 



174 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

at any hour. He is always in His Sacrament, in His Tabernacle; 
always attentive, always listening. Jesus listens: He listens to 
all we tell Him, nothing can ever disconcert His wisdom, rise 
above His power, tire His love. He is there to see our sorrows 
more closely, to console us more easily. . . . Oh ! you who 
are lonely and disheartened and say: I have no one to whom I 
can speak, no one to listen to me, no one to understand me, no 
one to sympathize with me. No one! Oh! hush, in case you 
grieve His listening heart. No one! And He is there for that 
very purpose, with a longing far greater that your own to listen 
to you, to sympathize with you, to comfort you [By telling you, 
"Thy sins are forgiven thee, go in peace?"], aye, more, to love 
you in His own tender compassionate way, to help you and make 
you happy (Sentinel of the Blessed Sacrament, June, 1908, pp. 
176, 177). 

A little child, as the legend runs, hearing that our Lord was 
really present in the Blessed Sacrament, goes to the church one 
day and climbing upon the altar, gently raps at the tabernacle 
door and whispers: "Are you there, dear Jesus? Oh, please do 
answer, for they say you really do dwell here." As there is still 
no reply, he says to himself: "Perhaps the infant Jesus is sleep- 
ing: I will gently wake Him. O sweetest Jesus, I love you, 
and beg you to answer me." Unable to resist this appeal of 
childlike love, our Lord replies: "Yes, my little child, I 
dwell here, to comfort every mourner; what would you ask 
of me?" (Ibid., p. 203). 

If we often visit our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and 
remain silently, humbly, and confidently at His feet, we will 
certainly hear His voice. He will answer us, will console, 
strengthen, and enlighten us, and His divine words will, ac- 
cording to the expression of Holy Scripture, drop down upon 
our souls as a refreshing dew. This must literally come to pass, 
when in need and affliction, especially in the concerns of our 
souls, we take our refuge to the Blessed Sacrament with faith 
and confidence. Our Lord expressly promised His assistance in 
such cases of need: "Come to Me, all you that labor, and are 
burdened, and I will refresh you". — Matt. xi. 28 (Tabernacle and 
Purgatory, May, 1905, pp. 10, 11). 

Now, in view of what those quotations say, is there 
then any possible reason why one should not confess 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 175 

directly to Christ-God in the Eucharist instead of to a 
priest? For surely it ought to be more consoling, com- 
forting, satisfying and refreshing to repentant sinners 
to have Christ-God say to them, after they have con- 
fessed their sins: "Thy sins are forgiven thee, go in 
peace" (Luke 7th), or, "go, and now sin no more" 
(John 8th), than to have a priest in the confessional 
absolve them in Latin, which they do not understand, 
and which absolution they accept by faith. And if 
we cannot confess directly to Christ-God in the Eucha- 
rist, as we pray directly to Him, then of what earthly 
use or benefit is such a Eucharistic abiding present 
Christ-God to us? He would be of no more use and 
benefit to us than are the inanimate pagan gods of 
wood, stone or metal to pagans. So, then, if Christ- 
God "is always in the Blessed Sacrament;" the Eu- 
charist "secures for us the abiding presence of Christ 
in our midst;" "His delight is to be with the children 
of men, to gladden their hearts;" "He is there to see 
our sorrows more closely, to console us more easily;" 
He dwells there "to comfort every mourner," and His 
voice of consolation, forgiveness and assurance "drop 
down upon our souls as a refreshing dew," etc., etc.. 
then of what use and benefit is all that to the world 
if He cannot there be confessed to, as He is there 
prayed to, adored and worshiped, and asked for for- 
giveness of sin ? Think of that question again ! 

Catholics do not, however, take their grievances, 
sorrows and troubles to the Eucharistic God for com- 
fort, consolation and relief; for they oftentimes tell 
them to mere acquaintances and nominal friends, tell- 
ing them all about their grievances, family troubles 
and other matters that weigh heavily upon their minds 
and hearts. That, then, is evidence that the Eucha- 



176 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

ristic God is not a comforter, consoler and burden- 
bearer to Catholics, and as useless and profitless to 
them as the pagan gods, which the Church says, "never 
give you a word of consolation or hope" (Catholic 
Ceremonies, Abbe Durand, p. 143), are to the pagans. 
Does there ever come a "word of consolation or hope" 
from the Eucharistic God in the tabernacle? 

No voice comes from the Tabernacle to stir the hearts of 
men. The Sacred Host gives no outward token of the Living 
Presence within. . . . All that our eyes perceive is a round 
white piece of bread, which faith tells us is the Living God 
(Tabernacle and Purgatory, August, 1905, p. Z7). 

Of what more use and benefit, then, than a pagan 
idol, is a Eucharistic God "in our midst," if we cannot 
go to Confession to Him, or "no voice comes from it 
to stir the hearts of men?" None whatever. It not 
only leads to idolatry and superstition — for Catholics 
do not look beyond the Eucharist for the original as 
one does of a picture of a person — and pompous form- 
ality, but becomes an actual burden on Catholics, 
many "of whom are not blessed with much of the 
world's goods" (Catholic Tribune, April 19, 1906), 
in building and maintaining magnificent churches and 
altars as "fitting dwelling places on earth" for such 
a God. 

We have to build Him a house, a tabernacle; to procure 
precious vessels, otherwise He can not dwell among us (Per- 
petual Adoration, 1908, p. 8). 

The Catholic people today, as ever, gladly spend their hard- 
earned money that their Lord God might have a fitting dwelling 
place upon earth (Question-Box Answers, Rev. B. L. Conway, p. 
266). 

There is one spot on earth which can never be too richly 
adorned, and that is the sanctuary in which our Lord vouch- 
safes to dwell among us [Yet cannot go to Confession to Him]. 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CaTHOLIC. 177 

Nothing is too good, nothing too beautiful, nothing too precious 
for God. He gives us all we possess, and the least we can do 
in return is to ornament that spot which He has chosen for His 
abode upon earth (The Faith of Our Fathers, Cardinal Gib- 
bons, p. 362). 

Hence the pomp and grandeur of the liturgical rites, the 
richness of the sacerdotal robes, the splendor of gold, the beauty 
of precious stones, the fragrance of flowers and of incense (The 
Real Presence, Rev. Smarius, p. 38). 

The exterior of the tabernacle should also be decorated in 
a manner befitting the presence of the King (Benedictine Parish 
Monthly, June, 1909, p. 5). 

The Church has taken the prophecies in about as 
literal and material a sense as the Jews did, who be- 
lieved "the promised Son of David would be a great 
temporal prince/' King, who would sit upon the literal 
earthly "throne of David His father" (Luke 1:32), 
as a real earthly king. And it is making material "fit- 
ting dwelling places" for God (iVlthough the Bible 
says that God "dwelleth not in houses or temples 
made with hands" — ^Acts 7:48; 17:24), instead of 
making our hearts, as He wants us to (John 14 : 23 ; 
Apoc. 3:20, etc.), the "fitting dwelHng places" for 
Him, by adorning, ornamenting and decorating them 
with patience, charity, sobriety, honesty, righteous- 
ness, etc. Or like building magnificent palaces and 
temples so that the photographs or marble statues of 
a certain person might have "fitting dwelling places 
upon earth." 

Another burden to Catholics, on account of the 
doctrine of the Real Presence, is that of Perpetual 
Adoration Societies, mostly in convents, where — 

Day and night . . . pious Sisters render Him continual 
reparation for all the outrages and sacrileges perpetrated against 
Him in this august Sacrament (Perpetual Adoration, 1903, p. 2). 

12 



178 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Here is, in part, what Perpetual Adoration requires : 

One pious man, who earns his bread by hard work, considers 
it a great honor and a particular privilege, to be allowed to 
place the exposition throne on the high altar (in a new chapel). 
He will donate $2,000 for this purpose. . . . Holy Church 
requires that when the Blessed Sacrament is continually exposed 
(for perpetual adoration), it will take eighty wax candles or 
twenty pounds of wax, in twenty-four hours. That will make 
not less than 29,200 wax candles, or 7,300 pounds of wax, in one 
year, which would cost about $2,555. In this is not included the 
great feasts, on which about fifty candles should be burned 
(Ibid., pp. 1, 2). 

Yet the old chapel of that very Perpetual Adoration 
Society was twice struck by lightning within two 
weeks, so that the two Sisters "who were adorers be- 
fore the Blessed Sacrament at that hour became almost 
unconscious from the effects of the shock," and the 
"entire north wall of the chapel was rent from top 
to bottom," so that it could no longer be used. That 
was contained in a circular letter received about five 
years ago asking for contributions, that a new chapel 
might be built. About five years later another such 
letter was received, which contained the following: 

The contribution received will go towards the completion 
and beautifying of our new chapel of Perpetual Adoration, for 
which we have been soliciting aid during the past years. Our 
old chapel was so seriously damaged by lightning that we were 
obliged to build a new one. It is now completed so far, as to 
enable us to use it for divine service, but the interior is sadly 
lacking the ornaments befitting the heavenly King whom we 
adore without intermission, day and night. . . . Our divine 
Lord in the Tabernacle will not fail to repay you. ... In 
return we will remember you day and night in the presence of 
our Eucharistic God. 

The Sisters of that society "have been compelled 
to borrow about $35,000, in order to be able to provide 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 179 

the necessary buildings, and for the greater part of 
this sum of money they must pay 5 per cent., which 
makes a yearly interest of over $1,500. . . . Surely 
a heavy burden!" (Perpetual Adoration, 1905, p. 9). 
The following shows how many Sisters there are in 
one community of the Perpetual Adoration, for which 
"necessary buildings" had to be provided, and why 
there are such societies: 

For more than twenty-five years the Sisters at — , 

have kept up the Perpetual Adoration. At present there 



are more than ninety nuns who have consecrated themselves to 
this angelic service. ... In a word, it is sought to render 
all possible love and adoration to our Lord in the Blessed 
Sacrament, remembering His words to Blessed Margaret 
Mary Alacoque: "I have a burning thirst to be honored by men 
in the Blessed Sacrament." Our Lord likewise said these re- 
markable words to her: "I wish to be treated as a king in a 
royal palace". . . . For this purpose we* have tried to erect 
a worthy adoration chapel, and during the past years have re- 
ceived from a number of devout adorers of the Most Holy 
Eucharist many noble offerings, which have made it possible, to 
erect a somewhat worthy abode for our Lord (Perpetual Adora- 
tion, 1908, p. 7). 

But Christ said: 

If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father 
will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our 
abode with him (John xiv. 23), 

that is, in his heart, which is better than in a material 
dwelHng place, the Tabernacle. Either Christ, then., 
has changed since He was on earth, or else the revela- 
tion purported to have been received from Him, in 
1675 A- D., by Blessed Margaret Mary is only a fable. 
Yet see what a devotion the Church has founded upon 
that purported revelation. She seems to have forgot- 
ten all about Gal. i :8, which reads as follows : 



180 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel 
to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be 
anathema. 

Is not Perpetual Adoration "besides," in addition 
to, "that which" the Apostles preached, if it was not 
till the year 1675 that Christ made the purported re- 
velation that He had "a burning thirst to be honored 
by men in the Blessed Sacrament," and wished "to 
be treated in the Blessed Sacrament as a king in a 
royal palace" (Perpetual Adoration, 1908, p. 9) ? 

Here is more as the result of the doctrine of the 
Real Presence: 

A branch of the Nocturnal Adoration Society, which has 
been in existence for some years in Baltimore, Boston, and other 
cities, and is affiliated to the parent society at Rome, has recently 
been established in New York. . . . The first public adora- 
tion was held in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed, 
in the church of the fathers of the Blessed Sacrament, . . . 
when a number of gentlemen relieved each other from hour to 
hour throughout the night, . . . and at the beginning of 
each hour, from 10 p. m. until 6 a, m., a party of worshipers re- 
placed those who had spent the previous hour in adoration (Cath- 
olic News, February 6, 1904, p. 5). 

That the membership is growing, may be seen by 
the following, which is just three weeks later than 
the foregoing: 

There has been a decided increase in the membership during 
the past month, and it is hoped that as the devotion becomes 
more generally known there will be a still greater number of 
adorers each month (Ibid., February 27, 1904, p. 18). 

In February, 1908, a Eucharistic Propaganda was 
begun, which has for its object the following: 

Its aim is to foster fervent and universal devotion to the 
Blessed Sacrament in a practical and popular way by means of 
the following devices : 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 181 

1. The Blessed Sacrament Beads. 

2. The Adoration Box with monthly cards. 

3. Literature, leaflets and pictures. 

The Beads are composed of a medal on which a Spiritual 
Communion is made [That is, "a desire to receive Jesus in the 
Eucharist"], and of thirty-three beads on each of which is recited 
the invocation : "Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, have mercy on 
us." His excellency, Archbishop Falconio, Apostolic delegate, who 
has shown the kindliest interest in this pious work, granted an 
indulgence of forty days each time this invocation was recited; 
through his gracious intercession with the Holy Father Pius X, 
the indulgence has recently been increased to 100 days [thus 
making a new spiritual gift]. . . . The Eucharistic Propa- 
ganda also sends out an Adoration Box, so arranged that the 
time spent by the members of a community or a parish before 
the Blessed Sacrament may be conveniently recorded, provided it 
is offered as adoration. . . . Postal cards will be furnished on 
which the hours of adoration and the number of beads dis- 
tributed should be recorded to be forwarded to the Head Centre. 
. . . The blessing and the approbations of the highest ec- 
clesiastical authorities are an earnest that the Eucharistic Prop- 
aganda will become a powerful mstrument for the increase of 
love towards our Divine Lord in the Eucharist. The work can 
be adopted in all schools and parishes. Children can be taught 
to recite the beads in common and to repeat the indulgenced 
invocation every time the clock strikes. ... As an incentive 
to further effort the following report of the work from February 
24, 1908, to June 1, 1909, is announced. Local Centres Established 
371. Hours of adoration recorded 1,709,933.10. . . . Record 
for June, 1909, Hours of Adoration 223, 549.10 (Messenger of 
The Sacred Heart, September, 1909, pp. 561-563). 

All that is the result of the Church not paying heed 
to Gal. 1 :8, when a woman, in 1675, is supposed to 
have received a revelation from our Lord, that He had 
"a burning thirst to be honored by men in the Blessed 
Sacrament," and wished "to be treated in the Blessed 
Sacrament as a king in a royal palace." 

Yet His Eminence, Cardinal Gibbons, says that re- 



182 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

velation "was complete at the beginning of the 
Church" (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 149). And 
the Church also says: 

H anything is promulgated or definitely decreed by the 
Church as being part of the faith, the meaning is that this was 
a thing which the Apostles themselves believed and preached 
(Plain Facts For Fair Minds, Rev. George M. Searle, p. 59). 

Did the Apostles believe and preach that Christ had 
"a burning thirst to be honored by men in the Blessed 
Sacrament," and that He wanted ''to be treated in 
the Blessed Sacrament, as a king in a royal palace?" 
No. The Roman Catholic Church, then, with her doc- 
trine of the Real Presence and devotions of Perpetual 
Adoration and Nocturnal Adoration, is not the Church 
of the Apostles, is she? Hardly. And it is strange, 
too, being that the Church does not permit a woman 
to teach and preach in the Church, that Christ should 
have made that purported revelation and gave the in- 
structions to a woman instead of to a man, the Pope, 
for instance. His supposed infallible Vicar on earth. 

And what an astonishing surprise it will be, or 
ought to be, to those who should ever get their eyes 
opened to the error of the doctrine of the Real Pres- 
ence, that the Eucharist, for which they spent "their 
hard-earned money" for building and maintaining 
magnificent churches and "richly adorned sanctuaries," 
as "fitting dwelling places upon earth" for it, and 
which was the center of "pomp and grandeur of litur- 
gical rites," etc., and which they adored and worshiped 
in Perpetual and Nocturnal Adorations as God, was 
after all nothing but an inanimate piece of blessed 
bread and was not the living, uncreated and eternal 
God, the "King," as their Church taught them to be- 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 183 

lieve. Surely, they ought to be surprisingly astonished 
in that event! 

The Church, however, is contradictory in her teach- 
ings with regard to the place in which God is, goes 
to or dwells, as may be seen by the following: 

In the Temple he has taken up His abode. 

You will invariably find Him there for it is the place of His 
rest until eternity. ... He is always in His Sacrament, in 
His Tabernacle (Sentinel of The Blessed Sacrament, June, 1908, 
pp. 175, 176). 

For love of me, He comes down every day from heaven to 
earth, bringing me the most precious gifts in the Holy Eucharist 
(Ibid., August, 1909, p. 259). 

In Masses the priest . . . dismisses the faithful with 
these words: "Ite Missa est", that is to say: "Go now, for 
Jesus Christ, our one advocate, has left this altar to enter into 
His glory" (Catholic Ceremonies And Explanations of the 
Ecclesiastical Year, Rev. Abbe Durand, pp. 62, 63). 

Our churches are the tents of the God of the Eucharist. He 
remains therein perpetually (Ibid., p. 243). 

While the priest pronounces the words of consecration, do 
you contemplate in silence the wonders that pass before you? 
Your God, your Saviour, and your judge descends on the altar 
(Ibid., p. 259). 

Is there not a contradiction as well as a difficulty 
in the foregoing? For if Christ-God is in the Taber- 
nacle "until eternity," He remains "perpetually" in our 
churches, then how does He leave the "altar to enter 
into His glory?" And if the Temple, the Tabernacle, 
''is the place of His rest until eternity," then how is 
He in Heaven to come "down every day from it to 
earth" to "descend on the altar," the Tabernacle ? And 
if after the Mass the "God of the Eucharist" leaves 
the altar "whole and entire" to "enter His glory," then 
to what do Catholics genuflect when they leave the 
Church after Mass? And if in Mass the priest "feeds 



184 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

upon the blessed body of Jesus," the "God of the Eu- 
charist," and "consumes" Him, so that His blood 
flows in the veins of the priest as "the blood of God," 
then how can that very same "God of the Eucharist" 
leave the "altar to enter into His glory" in Heaven, or 
how remain "perpetually" upon the altar, the Taber- 
nacle in the church? Or is there more than one "whole 
and entire" God? And if He remains "day and night" 
in the Tabernacle in "the tents of the God of the 
Eucharist," then hbw does He, outside of Perpetual 
and Nocturnal Adoration chapels, spend His nights, 
alone in churches? Does He gaze at the perpetual 
light for pastime, or how does He spend his time dur- 
ing the lonely and quiet hours of the night alone in 
churches ? 

The Church orders a light to be kept perpetually burning 
wherever the holy Eucharist is present on an altar, to express 
her faith in the real presence of Jesus in the holy Eucharist; 
for which reason a catholic church is really a house of God, not 
simply a meeting house or a lecture and preaching hall [As she 
regards Protestant churches] ; and a tabernacle is a throne of 
grace (St. Benedict's Catechism, No. 2, p. 76). 

How long and lonely are the nights for Jesus in the Blessed 
Sacrament! How slowly pass the hours of His abandonment! 
All is silence in the forsaken church ; no human form is prostrate 
before the Eucharistic God. . . . The sole watcher before the 
Prisoner of Love is the glowing sanctuary lamp. Lonely indeed 
are the nights for our Sacramental Guest, but oh! how much 
more lonely are the days! (Sentinel of the Blessed Sacrament, 
August, 1909, pp. 250, 251). 

The reason He is supposed to be more lonely dur- 
ing the daytime than at night is when people could 
without much inconvenience go to the church and 
prostrate themselves before the Eucharist, but which 
they do not do. Is not the error, idolatry, etc., of the 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 18S 

doctrine of the Real Presence something pitifully 
awful! We saw that at the "Ite Missa est'' Christ-God 
leaves the altar "to enter into His glory" in Heaven; 
yet here we just saw that He is very "lonely" in churck 
at night. What a contradiction! 

If anyone will attempt to find for himself answers 
to the contradictions and difficulties taught by the 
Church, he will discover, as I did, that there is no Real 
Presence of Christ-God in the Eucharist, and before 
which "a light is kept perpetually burning." And such 
being the case, there is no Christ-God "lonely" in 
church buildings, which buildings are sometimes so 
magnificent in poor communities as to lead a writer, 
who has traveled quite extensively over the world, 
to say: 

The lavish waste of wealth so often found in buildings con- 
secrated to a charity-loving Lord by a poverty-stricken com- 
munity is evidence of the unholy vanity of those who confiscate 
their victim's savings. Many a poor Catholic village invests a 
total in its cathedral that would double the home comforts of the 
entire membership. 

That is what results from the doctrine of the Real 
Presence and making altars, sanctuaries and church 
buildings, material temples in which "God dwelleth 
not," instead of our hearts, the "perpetual" and "fitting 
dwelling places for God," His Spirit. 

That there is no Real Presence in the Eucharist, 
and that there is nothing Supernatural about it, is 
further proven by the fact that its reception does not 
prevent or cure sickness, bodily infirmities and dis- 
eases. Yet it is claimed Communion will do that, as 
may be seen by the following: 

Two classes of persons should communicate frequently; the 
perfect to persevere in perfection, and the imperfect to attain 



186 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

perfection; the strong not to become weak, and the weak to 
grow strong; the sick to become cured, and the healthy to pre- 
vent sickness. — St. Francis de Sales (The Prodigal Son, Rev. 
Michael MuUer, p. 479). 

Do not all Qerics "communicate frequently" when 
they say Mass daily and communicate at each one? 
Why is it then that there are quite a few sick and 
ailing Clerics, some of whom die quite young, or who 
consult specialists, go to mineral springs, cha.nge 
climates, etc., in search of health? Or why is it that 
they ever became afflicted, if frequent Communion 
"prevents sickness?" Nor are they the only ones 
that are afflicted and suffer from sickness, but even 
quite a few good, pious Sisters, who "communicate 
frequently," are sick, consumptive or are otherwise 
afflicted, die young or seek health in various ways. 
Or why did they also ever become sick and ailing? 

Besides, the Church teaches the following: 

Whatever we ask at this time (Communion) will surely be 
given us, on condition that it is not contrary to the will of God 
and our salvation. — St. Teresa (Perpetual Adoration, 1905, p. 8). 

God is not accustomed to pay in a niggardly way for the so- 
journ that He has made in the stopping-place of our heart, after 
He has had a reception therein. — St. Teresa (Messenger of The 
Sacred Heart, January, 1909, p. 26). 

He is with you (at Communion) to do whatever you wbh 
(The Sentinel of the Blessed Sacrament, June 1908, p. 178). 

Now if when a communicant has supposedly Christ- 
God in his heart, He will give "whatever he asks" 
that "is not contrary to the will of God" and He does 
not then "pay in a niggardly way," and He will give 
"whatever you wish," then should not ailing and af- 
flicted Clerics, Sisters and Catholic laymen ask for 
restoration to health? And if they do, and they are 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 187 

not restored to health, then does that not make it 
evident that there is no Real Presence and that the 
Eucharist is not Supernatural, but that it is only as 
so much blessed bread? Yes. For it cannot reasona- 
bly be said that it is God's will they should be sick 
and ailing and some die young, when they are doing 
so much good in the world. And if it is God's will 
that they should be sick and ailing, or it is not His 
will that they should be restored to health, then why 
do they use medicines and employ every human agency 
to get well or to prolong their suffering lives here? 
Why fight God's will, or trample it under foot, by 
trying to get vi^ell after He would not give them health 
when they asked for it at Communion? Or did they 
all make unworthy Communions? 

St. Paul, in these words (1 Cor. 11:30), says: On account 
of your unworthy communions, because you, in many instances, 
receive without discerning the body of the Lord, you are af- 
flicted with sickness, and even with death, in punishment of your 
awful guilt by the profanation of the sacred body and blood of 
the Redeemer (Doctrinal Catechism, Rev. S. Keenan, pp. 214, 
215). 

The reason they are sick and afflicted, or were not 
restored to health, is not because they might have 
made "unworthy Communions," but because there is 
no Real Presence in the Eucharist, and nothing Super- 
natural about it. 

That there is nothing Supernatural and animating 
about the Eucharist, may further be seen by the fol- 
lowing : 

Notwithstanding all attempts to check it (lack of communi- 
cating when attending Mass) , coldness in this respect went on in- 
creasing from day to day and from year to year until the Church 
found it necessary to enact laws requiring all to approach Holy 



188 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Communion at least on Sundays and festivals. In course of 
time still greater latitude was given, for it was only required 
that a person should communicate at three special periods of the 
year, viz., on Christmas, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost. . . . 
This practice continued until about the thirteenth century, when 
the fourth Council of Lateran, A. D. 1215, held under the au- 
spices of Pope Innocent III., solemnly declared and decreed, un- 
der pain of excommunication, that all the faithful who had 
reached the years of discretion should confess their sins at 
least once a year and approach Holy Communion within the 
Pascal time (A History of The Mass, Rev. John O'Brien, A 
M., pp. 371, 372). 

(Were those "Thus saith the Lord" [The Faith of 
Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons, p. 144] laws or de- 
crees? If so, why were they changed if God is un- 
changeable ?) 

The Church enjoins, under pain of mortal sin, a single com- 
munion in the year, as the least which can be required of a 
Christian (The Prodigal Son, Rev. Michael Miiller, p. 474). 

Does it appear from the foregoing as though the 
following are true? 

The soul's insatiable hunger increasing the more, the oftener 
it eats of this mysterious Bread giving a foretaste of heavenly 
delights (Sentinel of the Blessed Sacrament, January, 1908, p. 
25). 

When the Lord, in holy communion, enters our soul, does not 
enter with Him heaven with all its delights and felicity? (Tab- 
ernacle and Purgatory, November, 1906, p. 101)? 

The more my soul was satiated with this Heavenly Manna, 
the more ardently it hungered for it. — A humble workwoman in 
France (Children of Mary: Frequent and Daily Communion, 
Father Julius Lintelo, S. J., p. 51). 

In urging you, dear reader, to the more frequent use of this 
Sacrament, these words of Holy Scripture are to the point : 
"Taste and see that the Lord is sweet." You need but make an 
earnest trial and you will soon experience that there is a mag- 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 189 

tietism about the Blessed Sacrament, which draws you to it 
(Benedictine Parish Monthly, December, 1909, p. 6). 

God, having constituted Himself man's last end, placed within 
man's breast a craving for union with Himself; and hence He 
must needs grant man what He made it natural for him to crave 
for. . . . Ardent love cannot bear separation, and it wants 
the conscious presence of the object loved (Truth, March, 1908, 
pp.277 278). 

The body and blood of Christ being distributed in our mem- 
bers, we become Christophori, that is, we carry Christ with US 
(Truth, April, 1908, p. 7). 

When "coldness in this respect (of going to Com- 
munion) went on increasing from year to year," so 
that the Church had to "enact laws requiring the faith- 
ful," "under pain of excommunication and mortal sin," 
to "at least once a year approach Holy Communion," 
•does that make it appear to be true, that "the oftener 
the soul eats of this mysterious bread" its "insatiable 
hunger increases the more" for it; that "when the 
Lord in Holy Communion enters our soul," with Him 
•enters "heaven with all its delights and felicity;" that 
"there is a magnetism about the Blessed Sacrament, 
v^hich draws one to it," and that God has "placed with- 
in a man's breast a craving for union with Himself" 
in the Eucharist, and that one has so an "ardent love" 
for the Eucharistic God that one "can not bear separa- 
tion" from it, or make it appear there is anything 
warm, thrilling, animating, impelling, attractive or 
magnetic about it? The answer is too evident not to 
know what it is. 

Again, if by receiving Communion we have "union 
with" God, we feel "the conscious presence of the ob- 
ject loved" — but which is not the case, for no one feels 
a warmth or thrill immediately after having received 
Communion, and if one did feel thus it would be a 



190 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

"new miracle" (Truth, February, 1908, p. 265) — ^and 
*we carry Christ with us," then does all that last only, 
as we saw, till "the natural heat has destroyed" the 
"species," or till they have "ceased because of digestion," 
"which will only be for a few minutes at most?" If 
so, then does such a short "union with" God, once a 
month or quarterly or yearly, at the "Pascal time/^ 
when He takes His leave again "whole and entire," 
really do the people any good? The "increasing de- 
pravity of morals," the "corruption of morals," ''graft," 
etc., as we saw, when the "religion of all Europe was 
Catholic" and there were no Protestants to criticise 
conduct, is the answer, is it not? 

Of course, that is not to be wondered at if Christ 
is present in the Eucharist "after the manner of some- 
thing inanimate." 

To be inanimate is to lack a soul, the principle of life. To 
be "after the manner of something inanimate," is to fail to give 
some of the indications of animation, or the possession of a 
soul. ... By saying that Christ is present in the Eucharist, 
after the manner of something inanimate, we mean, then, that He 
is present in such a manner, that without a new miracle He can 
not give any indication of His living presence. . . . For any 
indication of animation given by Christ in the Eucharist would be 
a new miracle (Truth, February, 1908, p. 265). 

To be present "after the manner of something in- 
animate," then, is the same as to be present "after 
the manner of something dead," lacking "a soul, the 
principle of life." Well^ such a Christ is just as use- 
less and worthless to us as is the "inanimate" pagan 
god of wood or stone to the pagan, is it not? And 
it is not giving very much spiritual "life to the world," 
as Christ said "the bread of God," the "bread of life," 
would give, is it, if there was an "increasing depravity 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 191 

of morals," etc., when the "religion of all Europe was 
Catholic," and the Church had to "enact laws requiring 
the faithful," "under pain of excommunication and 
mortal sin," to "approach" Communion at least once 
a year? Surely, all that makes it very evident that a 
Christ present "after the manner of something inani- 
mate" is useless and worthless to the world, and that 
to eat the flesh of such a Christ indeed "profiteth noth- 
ing." And to go to Communion, then, only "under 
pain of mortal sin," is simply a mechanical observance 
or compliance with a law of the Church, and is not 
in response to a free and spontaneous "hunger and 
thirst" for or a "craving within man's breast for union 
with God." And there is not received in Communion, 
"in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its 
very fountain," is there, when we judge by the fruits 
of the times when the "religion of all Europe was 
Catholic?" "By their fruits you shall know them," 
which are the proofs that a Christ, who is present in 
the Eucharist, "after the manner of something inani- 
mate," is absolutely useless and worthless to the world, 
and absolutely "profiteth nothing" to those who eat 
such Eucharistic Christs. And it is no wonder, then, 
that the Church had to enact laws from time to time 
obliging the faithful to approach Communion at stated 
times, and that man has not in his breast "a natural 
craving for union with" such a Christ-God. 

If a man really had in his breast a "craving for 
union with" the Eucharistic God, then there would 
be no need of enacting a law obliging him to unite 
himself with this God, or go into His presence in the 
Tabernacle in church, just as a young man having in 
his "breast a craving for union" in marriage with a 
certain attractive and magnetic young woman needs 



192 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

no law obliging him to call on her, or compelling him 
to unite himself with her in marriage. 

In view of that, then, does not the Church law of 
yearly Communion flatly contradict the claims of the 
Church that God has placed in man's breast "a natural 
craving for union with Himself/' and if this union is 
to be had only by eating the Eucharist? Yes. It also 
further proves that there is nothing Supernatural, ani- 
mating, impelling, attractive or magnetic about the 
Eucharist, and that to eat it does a person no more 
spiritually good than if one were to eat at a dining table 
a piece of blessed bread or an oyster cracker. 

The law of yearly Communion is like the law of 
the Church that obliges the faithful, "under pain of 
mortal sin" (Question-Box Answers, Rev. B. L. Con- 
way, p. 455), to go to Mass on Sundays and holy days. 
Protestants not knowing of that law wonder what sort 
of a magnet the Mass is that it can draw Catholics 
in large numbers to church and fill their churches in 
the early hours of the forenoon, when many Protest- 
ants are still in bed, and when their churches are often 
but scantily filled. It is mainly so because a law 
of their church obliges them to go ; that is the reason 
for it. Yet despite that law the attendance at Mass 
is not what it ought to be. 

Is not the neglect of Sunday Mass and of Easter Communion 
one of the most saddening signs of the times, . . . and a 
great obstacle to the propagation of the faith? (Sentinel of The 
Blessed Sacrament, August, 1908, p. 247)? 

(Yet the Church says, as we saw, that Mass and 
Communion are magnets, "which draw us to them.") 

How prevalent are the sins of drunkenness, cursing, swear- 
ing, . . . and neglect of Mass on Sundays (Spiritual Pepper 
and Salt, Right Rev. Wm. Stang, D. D., p. 190). 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 193 

Well, probably the Sunday "Mass-missers" are 
beginning to reason with themselves in this wise, and 
saying: 

If we can, by going to Confession, when we make our Easter 
Duty, get forgiven the mortal sins of "drunkenness, cursing, 
swearing", etc., that we regularly commit again and again, we 
can also at the same time, by confessing them, get our mortal 
sins of missing Mass on Sundays forgiven. 

The Vesper services of the Church, to which her 
members are not obliged, "under pain of mortal sin," 
to attend, are very poorly attended, excepting on Sun- 
days during Lent, in comparison with the attendance 
at Mass. Yet they are quite important, for they usual- 
ly end with the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, 
where Christ is supposed to bless those present the 
same as those were blessed who were personally 
blessed by Him while He was on earth. But enough 
of that. Here is the why of the law of yearly Com- 
munion : 

The motive of the Commandment of the Church is a desire 
on the part of the Church to prevent neglect of a necessary 
means -of salvation. Mindful, therefore, of the words of Jesus 
(Here quotes John vi. 54, 55), she lays upon us her fourth Com- 
mandment "To receive the Blessed Sacrament at least once a 
year", — and that at Easter or thereabouts (Essentials and Non- 
Essentials of the Catholic Religion, Rev. H. G. Hughes, pp. 88, 
S9). 

With a latitude of three months, it is hard to see how the 
Easter obligation should be a burden to any one. The fact is, it 
is not for want of time or opportunity that people put off the 
discharge of this duty; but they have simply grown so un- 
spiritual, so thoroughly worldly, that it requires a superhuman 
effort to get themselves into the proper condition. There are 
those who live well-nigh heathenish lives for 364 days of the 
year, and it is little wonder they should find it hard to live as a 

13 



194 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

good Christian for twenty-four hours (Benedictine Parish 
Monthly, March, 1909, p. 2). 

It would seem that if any "live well-nigh heathenish 
lives for 364 days of the year," it would not matter 
much if they did ''neglect a necessary means of salva- 
tion," that of a yearly Communion, which made them 
"live as a good Christian for 24 hours." For if they 
should die sud.denly or be killed in an accident 48 hours 
after their "good Christian life of 24 hours," they would 
be without salvation anyway. So, then, of what use is 
a yearly Communion by law, and then live the re- 
mainder of the 364 days of the year "a well-nigh 
heathenish life?" And do such abide in Christ, and 
He in them (John 6:57)? And do such "thirst** 
(John 7 : 37 ; Apoc. 22. : 17) ? It would seem that such 
would need to be "born again," rather than be com- 
pelled by law to perform a certain yearly "religious 
duty." But what else can be expected if Christ is 
present in the Eucharist, "after the manner of some- 
thing inanimate." 



CHAPTER VII. 

When one has so little love and thirst for the "liv- 
ing God," "after the manner of something inanimate," 
that he will not spontaneously "feed upon His blessed 
body," but must be made to do so by law, by which — 

No man is justified with God (Gal. 3: 11), 

such a one is not at heart much of a disciple of Christ, 
is he, although he is a member of the "only saving 
faith," as the Church claims she is? And is not the 
law of yearly Communion contrary to the doctrine of 
salvation by free will, and contrary to what Christ and 
the Apostles taught, who used "persuasion" (Cor. 
5 :ii) ? Christ said: 

If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink (John 
vii. 37). And he that thirsteth, let him come; and he that will, 
let him take of the water of life, freely (Apoc. xxii. 17). 

Is that not, in one sense, persuasion? If so, then 
when one is obliged by law to go to Communion at 
least once a year and eat and drink Christ literally, 
and one goes only because one is obliged by law to 
go, then can it be said such a one has any thirst for 
Christ, or that one has in his breast "a natural craving 
for union with" Him in the Eucharist, or that one 
has a free will, or that his Christianity is spontaneous, 
of the "born again" kind? Hardly. If a man is not 
thirsty for natural water and he is made to drink by 
compulsion, law, then has he a free will? No. In 
view of that, then, the law of yearly Communion, sup- 
posed to be "a necessary means of salvation," is un- 

195 



196 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

scriptural, contrary to the teachings of Christ and 
contrary to the doctrine of salvation by free will, is 
it not? Yes. And when one desires salvation and 
has hunger and thirst for Christ, or "a craving for 
union with Him," so that he wants to "feed upon His 
blessed body," "take the water of life, freely," and 
have "the blood of God flow in his veins," then he 
will not wait until he is obliged by law to go to Com- 
munion. And whenever he wants to go to Com- 
munion, or wants to go frequently, then it is not a 
matter for his "confessor" to judge for him and give 
his consent when to go or how often, as is now the 
case in the Church. 

The Pope has rendered a decision on the practice of frequent 
Communion, which is to be made known to all bishops and all 
superiors of religious communities. It is substantially as fol- 
lows : "Frequent, and even daily, communion is to be strongly 
commended, and the only condition requisite for its profitable 
reception by all classes of the faithful is freedom from mortal 
sin and the resolve to avoid sin in the future. The confessor will 
be the judge in the case. His consent is required" (Catholic 
Tribune, April 19, 1906, p. 7). 

That makes one's "confessor," not one's own heart, 
disposition and inclination, the "judge in the case." 
Surely an anomaly ! 

The Church has the following to say about "fre- 
quent, and even daily. Communion:" 

The holy martyr Cyprian, writing on the Our Father, says : 
"We ask daily in the Lord's Prayer for this Divine Bread, that 
we, as we daily receive the food of salvation, may live united 
with Christ, and by the assistance of His grace, be preserved 
from all vices" (Tabernacle and Purgatory. August, 1905, p. 46). 

In this holy Mystery, our Redeemer places at our disposal 
all the benefits of His Passion and Death, that we, who daily 
commit sin, may be daily washed in His precious Blood [What 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 197 

need, then, of going to Confession?], and daily nourished by 
the reception of His sacred Body. — St. Bernard (Ibid., p. 48). 

We pray that our daily Bread, which is Christ, may be given 
to us daily.— St. Syprian (Ibid., September, 1908, p. 72). 

Pray that the ''Sacred Congregation" will give us 
permission to receive it daily or frequently? 

The question of how frequently a person should go to Holy 
Communion and what dispositions are required for the frequent 
reception of the Holy Eucharist has often worried pious Cath- 
olics. The Sacred Congregation has lately settled it definitely 
(St. Benedict's Calendar, June, 1906, p. 50). 

Christ said that "if any man thirst, let him come 
to me, and drink," "let him take the water of life, 
freely" (John 7: 37; Apoc. 22: 17). Does then the "Sa- 
cred Congregation" precede or supercede Christ, be- 
cause "pious Catholics" are to be governed by its 
decisions, and not by their own "thirst," "natural crav- 
ing," for Christ, as to "how frequently they should go 
to Communion?" Do not such compHances with the 
decisions of the "Sacred Congregations" result only in 
religious formalities, mechanical piety? 

You shall receive Me in holy communion as often as obedi- 
ence shall permit you; you shall moreover communicate on the 
first Friday of each month.— Our Lord to Blessed Margaret 
Alacoque, at "that last great revelation of the Sacred Heart of 
Jesus, which took place during the octave of Corpus Christi, 
June 16, 1675" (Tabernacle and Purgatorv February, 1906 pp. 
104, 106). 

That contradicts what Christ, our Lord, said in 
John 7:37; Apoc. 22:17. Has Christ changed? The 
Church says this about "revelation :" 

All revelation came from God alone through His inspired 
ministers and it was complete at the beginning of the Church 
(The Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, p. 149). 



198 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

What, then, was "that last great revelation'* pur- 
ported to have been received by, or made to. Blessed 
Margaret Alacoque in June, 1675? Was it what St. 
Paul would call it (Gal. i :8) ? And is not the Sacred 
Heart doctrine, with its Communions on the "first 
Friday of each month," something "besides," that is, 
an addition to, that which the Apostles preached? And 
if women, according to God's Word^ as the Church 
claims, are not to teach and preach in the Church, then 
it is very strange indeed that our Lord did not make 
"that last great revelation'* to a man, the Pope, for 
instance, instead of to a woman. What an inconsistent 
and self-contradictory Church the Roman Catholic is. 
Is that not a fact, in view of what we have seen? 

If you keep away from Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, you 
will lose your tastes for heavenly things, while acquiring, alas ! 
the taste for evil pleasures [Are "evil pleasures" eaten and tasted 
with the mouth?]. It will then be too late to accustom yourself 
to frequent Communion. Therefore, with the permission of your 
Confessor, go to Jesus as often as possible (Children of Mary: 
Frequent and Daily Communion, Father Lintelo, S. J., pp. 40, 41). 

That would be Hke, "with the permission of your 
Confessor," praying to God "as often as possible." 
What an absurdity, this regulation of getting the "per- 
mission of your Confessor" to go to Communion "as 
often as possible!" 

To me it seems a person should go to Communion 
whenever he has in his breast "a craving for union 
with" the Eucharistic God, regardless of what the 
"Confessor" has to say about going "as often as pos- 
sible," and regardless of whether it is the "first Friday 
of each month," or on Sunday, Monday or Thursday, 
or any other day. Is that not so? 

But here the Confessor seems no longer to have 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 199 

a "corner" on Communions, that is, on how often one 
may "feel upon the blessed body of Jesus," God, if 
he has "a craving for union with Him" and wants the 
"blood of God" to "flow in his veins :" 

Even the priest no longer has the power to economize the 
grant of Communions at discretion, once a penitent receives in 
a state of grace [As though he could ever receive in any other 
state, without bringing "judgment to himself] and out of some 
right motive. . . . His permission is not essentially needed, 
for the Holy See (the Chair of Peter) has itself done much 
more than permit the practice; it positively urges it. Thus the 
Confessor is warned "not to dissuade anyone" who receives in 
the state of grace and out of a right motive [Wants to "take of 
the water of life, freely?"]. In view then of the priest's position 
in the business as defined by Rome [Ex Cathedra f], it would 
be a curious case of "topsy-turvy-dom" for a parent calmly 
to forbid that which the priest himself is warned by the Holy 
See to beware of forbidding. — Rev. F. D. Zulueta, S. J., on 
"Parents and Frequent Communion of Children" (Messenger 
of The Sacred Heart, June, 1909, p. 339). 

The Council of Trent expressly lays it down that Christ 
desires the Holy Eucharist, to be received as "a remedy for 
daily faults." The Fathers teach the same doctrine. Because 
you sin every day" ["Chase Christ away by sin and enthrone 
Satan in his place" daily?], says St. Augustine, "receive Com- 
munion daily". . . . And St. Ambrose, his great contem- 
porary, teaches that "this daily bread is taken as a remedy for 
daily infirmity," . . . that is, for venial sin (Messenger of 
The Sacred Heart, December, 1908, p. 718). 

Are there not a lot of contradictions and incon- 
sistencies, and much "topsy-turvy-dom," in the quota- 
tions of the last few pages on "frequent, and even 
daily," Communion? Once it is, in the Lord's Prayer 
the daily bread asked for is supposed to be divine 
bread, the Eucharist, and means we should receive it 
daily in order to "be preserved from all vices." Then, 
we should get the "permission of the Confessor" should 



200 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

we want to comply with the petition in the Lord's 
Prayer and want to go to Communion daily, or go 
"often to Jesus" to "feed upon His blessed body/' 
Yet Christ also said we should "take of the water of 
life, freely," should we "thirst" for it. Then, we 
should go to Communion "as often as obedience shall 
permit," and "on the first Friday of each month," as 
though the petition "give us this day our daily bread,'' 
was more applicable on the "first Friday of each 
month" than on the other days of the month. And 
this regulation or exhortation a woman received in a 
revelation in 1675, although revelation was supposed 
to have been "complete at the beginning of the 
Church," which it appears was not the Roman Catholic 
Church. For she has many doctrines and devotions 
that were "revealed" to saints in the deserts and other 
places of solitary seclusion, in the Middle Ages, when 
the "religion of all Europe" was Catholic. 

The language used by Christ in those purported 
revelations sounds so different from that which He 
used while on earth, as recorded in the Bible, that in 
reading those revelations it becomes apparent at once 
that they were not from Him at all, but were the 
fabrications of those who wanted to promote certain 
doctrines and devotions. They are like the "revela- 
tions" the head officers of certain churches purport 
receiving from God, when they want their sons to 
be chosen their successors at their death, or want to 
promote anything in their churches. But enough 
of that. 

Again, frequent or daily Communion would imply 
that the body and blood of Christ, the "flesh of God" 
(Messenger of The Sacred Heart, April, 1909, p. 210), 
the Catholics' food for the soul, is no more substantial, 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 201 

imperishable, lasting and eternal than the animal flesh 
and natural food for the body, of which a healthy 
person partakes daily. That fact alone is enough to 
prove there is no Real Presence of Christ-God in the 
Eucharist. For surely the real ''flesh of God" ought 
to be as substantial, imperishable and eternal as God 
Himself, the "I AM," whose divine essence, substance, 
is certainly substantial, imperishable and eternal. 
Such being the case, then there is no need of partaking 
"frequently, and even daily," of the "flesh of God" 
unless one "chases Him away by sin and enthrones 
Satan in His place," or else one eats and "consumes" 
only the "appearances" and not the real "flesh of 
God." And if the latter, then how has one "eat the 
flesh of the Son of Man, and drank His blood?" 

If a person would only think for a moment and 
understood that the substance, essence, of God is 
eternal and imperishable, which would make His flesh 
also the same, he would see the great error of the 
Church that one should often or daily literally eat the 
"flesh of God," in order to "nourish and sustain his 
soul," just as one partakes daily of natural food ta 
nourish and sustain the body. And the only time, 
then, for going to Communion would be after one had 
"chased Him away by sin," though it be but half 
an hour or so after one had previously communicated. 
And, if in wanting to eat the "flesh of God" so soon 
again, the confessor should make objections then the 
aspirant for Communion could say about this to him: 

Father Confessor, I just chased Christ-God away by sin. I 
just cannot bear separation from Him and I have in my breast 
an intense craving for union with Him. Therefore I went to 
Confession again and have come to the Communion railing to 



202 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

receive again Christ-God into my soul; for he is not there just 
now. 

That is a sentence one could legitimately form 
from the contradictory teachings and practices of the 
Church. But how absurd that is! It is only when 
one "digs a little deeper" into them that one can see 
their absurd, contradictory, inconsistent and unscrip- 
tural character, and see there is no Real Presence in 
the Eucharist, that it is only as so much blessed bread 
or wine, as quite a few Catholics are beginning to 
regard it, and that the Spirit must be received "by the 
hearing of faith" (Gal. 3:2) and believing (John 7: 
39), mental acts of the mind and will, and not mouth- 
eating acts. 

The Catholics who do not believe in a Real Pres- 
ence of Christ in the Eucharist, when they go to 
Communion they do so to specially remember the 
death of the Lord, "until He come," and do not com- 
municate with the thought as though they were eating 
the "flesh of God," in order to "have everlasting life." 
There are quite a few Catholics of that kind, but, of 
course, they do not make that known to anyone who 
might tell the Church about them. But to me they 
have told it because they know I will never give them 
away to the Church, or to anyone who might betray 
them to the Church. And the reason they do 
not leave the Church is because they can not ex- 
pediently do so. Some have died since, who told me 
at one time they did not believe all the Church teaches, 
and they were buried from the Church, and with a 
Mass, too. 

The following is what the Church has to say 
about what a Catholic must believe in order to be a 
member of her fold: 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 203 

Should a Catholic be so unfortunate as contumaciously to 
deny a single article of faith ... he ceases to be a member 
of the Church (The Faith of Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons, p. 
27). 

A Catholic must accept all the teachings of the Church or 
must reject them all. There is no picking or choosing as to 
the doctrines you will believe in. You must accept it as a 
whole or reject it as a whole (Catholic Register, August 19, 
1904). 

Yet there are more people members of the Church 
than she has apparently any idea of, who deny more 
than "a single article of faith," who do not "accept it 
as a whole," and who disbelieve this or that doctrine 
or doctrines. And one of them is the Real Presence of 
Christ in the Eucharist, they regarding the Eucharist 
as simply a piece of blessed bread, in the partaking 
of which they hold the thought of specially remember- 
ing the death of the Lord, "until He come," for which 
the Lord's Supper was instituted by Christ. The 
Eucharist to such, then, is not Supernatural, but is 
only as so much blessed bread. Yet they live lives 
"of a high moral standard." 

But be that as it may, the Eucharist, then, being 
only as so much blessed bread, and it instead of the 
gospel and the spirit and life of Christ being made by 
the Church the "bread of life," is it any wonder, then, 
that "coldness in this respect (of going to Com- 
munion) went on increasing from day to day and 
from year to year until the Church found it necessary 
to enact laws" obliging all, "under pain of excom- 
munication and mortal sin," to receive Communion 
"at least once a year;" that there should have been 
an "increasing depravity of morals" in the thirteenth 
century, the "graft" and the "corruption of morals" 
in the sixteenth century, which, as we saw, "called 



204 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

for a sweeping reformation," when practically the 
"religion of all Europe" was Catholic? No. And does 
all that not make it very evident there is nothing of 
a supernatural character about the Eucharist, that the 
Spirit must be received **by the hearing of faith," and 
that "the letter (John 6 : 48-59) killeth, but the spirit 
quickeneth" (2 Cor. 3:6)? For surely to receive 
the Eucharist is to "co-operate with it, or at least 
is not resisting it" (The Faith of Our Fathers, Car- 
dinal Gibbons, p. 303) ; just as to eat natural food is 
to "co-operate with it, or at least is not resisting it," 
the one believed to work supernaturally in the soul to 
supposedly strengthen and animate it for the practice 
of heavenly virtues, and the other working naturally 
in the body to strengthen and sustain its life for the 
performance of earthly labors. Is that not so? Yes. 

But now it may be said that if one has not the 
will to "practice heavenly virtues" then the soul 
strengthened by Communion can not practice them ; 
just as a body strengthened by natural food can not 
"perform earthly labors" if it does not will to work. 
Granting that such is the case, then does that not 
prove that the will is not animated, moved and 
impelled by the reception of Communion, as well as 
by attendance at Mass, to "practice heavenly virtues?" 
Yes. Neither does natural food animate and impel 
the will, that it may, through the body, "perform 
earthly labors." For oftentimes the strongest bodied 
and the most well-fed people have the least will and 
inclination to labor. 

In view of that, then, it is not Communion that 
makes or impels us to practice heavenly virtues, but 
that it is the will that does, and that the will is not 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 205 

moved, animated or impelled by Communion or by 
attendance at Mass. 

That the will and inclination to do right, practice 
heavenly virtues, are not strengthened, animated or 
impelled by the reception of Communion and attend- 
ance at Mass, may be inferred from the following : 

In the earliest ages the Church imposed great penances upon 
sinners for their sins which were already forgiven. For instance, 
murder or adultery was punished by a penance of twenty years; 
perjury, eleven; fornication, denial of faith or fortune-telling, 
by seven years of severe penance with fasting, etc. During this 
time it was not allowed to travel, except on foot, to be present 
at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or to receive the holy Euchar- 
ist. If the penitents showed a great zeal for penance and sin- 
cere amendment, . . . the bishops granted them an 
indulgence, that is, they remitted the remaining punishment 
either totally or partially (Goffine, Rev. Leonard Goffine, p. 553). 

If, then, penitents in the earlier ages of the Church 
could persevere for years or for twenty years in 
"sincere amendment," that is, without recommiting 
the same kind of sins, when they were "not allowed 
to be present at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or to 
receive the holy Eucharist," then does that not prove 
that the Mass and the Eucharist are not supernatural, 
there is nothing animating or sanctifying about them, 
that they do not move, impel and strengthen the will 
and inclination to do right and do not "preserve from 
mortal sin," nor "subdue our passions," nor "repress" 
them, when those who made use of the Mass and 
Communion, in their "passions," committed "murder 
and adultery?" Yes. "By their fruits you shall know 
them." 

We just saw that the Church at one time "imposed 
great penances upon sinners for their sins which were 
already forgiven." Yet notwithstanding that severity 



206 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

there was an ''increasing depravity of morals" and 
the "corruption of morals" became so prevalent and 
great "as to call for a sweeping reformation," when 
the "religion of all Europe" was Catholic. That is 
another proof that a Christ present in the Eucharist, 
"after the manner of something inanimate," is abso- 
lutely useless and worthless, and that with such a 
Christ and the great severity of penances and Church 
laws and inhibitions, people can not be made to and 
will not "live lives of a high moral standard," and 
shows that the "spirit that quickeneth" is not received 
by a mouth-eating act, "works of the law" (Gal. 3:2), 
but must be received "by the hearing of faith." 

When Christ was on earth and forgave sinners He 
did not then impose "great penances upon" them, but 
said to them: "Go in peace" (Luke 7:50); "Go, and 
now sin no more" (John 8: ii), etc. Yet the Church 
says: 

Priests impose a penance on the sinner (in the Confessional), 
as Jesus would do, if He were still on earth (Questions Asked 
by Protestants Briefly Answered by a Priest of the Diocese of 
Buffalo, p. 2>7). 

As Christ did not impose penances when He was 
on earth it is not likely He would do so now, "if He 
were still on earth." Such being the case, the Roman 
Catholic Church can not be and is not the "only and 
true Church of Christ," is she? But be that as it 
may, that there is no Real Presence in the Eucharist 
may still further be seen by the following: 

In order that there may be no danger of the Sacred Particles 
becoming stale or unpleasant to the taste, it is customary to 
renew them every eight or ten days (A History of The Mass, 
Rev. John O'Brien, A. M., p. 88). 

The Church further teaches that the Real Presence of Christ 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 207 

remains as long as the form remains uncorrupted ; when, how- 
ever, that becomes changed — as, for instance, if the taste of the 
consecrated wine should become sour, so that it would no longer 
be considered as wine but as vinegar — the Real Presence would 
no longer remain (Plain Facts for Fair Minds, Rev. George 
M. Searle, pp. 84, 95). 

How does the Church know such is the case? 
Where does it say that in the writings of the Apostles 
or in their creed? Does the living chicken, which has 
been made from the changed substance of an egg, 
become "stale in eight or ten days," or become sour, 
spoiled, even though "the shell of the egg remains 
after its substance has been changed into the living 
chicken" (Truth, April, 1908, p. 6), unless it is killed 
or becomes inanimate? No. If, then, the substances 
of bread and wine, that have supposedly been changed 
into the living Christ, and, as we saw, "no bread 
or wine whatsoever remain after the consecration," 
they having been "annihilated" at the consecration, 
become "stale," "sour," then they have really never 
been changed into the living Christ, have they? No; 
unless a "new miracle" takes place, that is, retran- 
substantiation, which, it might then be asked, Who or 
what performs that miracle? Is it chemicalization, 
fermentation or Christ? For the substances of bread 
and wine are supposed to be no longer present after 
the consecration, so that the "species" are no longer 
to be beheld as bread and wine, and it is their sub- 
stance, not their "appearances," that become stale and 
sour, just as we no longer behold "the shell of the egg" 
that remains after its substance has been changed 
into a living chicken as the "veil" of the living chicken. 
In fact, so long as the shell is not broken we can not 



208 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

know whether the egg contains a living chicken or 
rotten matter. Besides, the Church says : 

Every object in creation is made .up of these two elements 
(substance and accidents). By the substance we mean a thing's 
very essence. By the accidents we mean its mere qualities. . . . 
Substance, therefore, is that which stands under or supports the 
qualities perceived by our senses; that which lies behind the 
phenomena; that, in a word, in which the attributes and acci- 
dents of a thing may reside. The accidents, on the other hand, 
are the mere qualities inherent in the substance; that which the 
substance supports ; those external appearances or evidences by 
which the existence of the substance is recognized and made 
known to us (Thoughts For all Times, Right Rev. Mgr. John 
S. Vaughan, pp. 139, 140). 

If, then, substance "is that which stands under or 
supports the qualities perceived by our senses," and 
our sense of taste perceives a stale and a vinegar taste 
in the "accidents" of bread and wine, and it is these 
external evidences of a stale and a sour taste "by 
which the existence of the substance is recognized and 
made known to us," the substance that "lies behind 
the phenomena," or "species," then when the "species" 
become stale and sour, through the natural laws of 
acidity, decay or fermentation, does that not prove 
that no "substance" of the flesh and blood of Christ- 
God ever laid behind the "accidents" of bread and 
wine that become stale and sour in "eight or ten 
days?" For surely the superior substance of Christ- 
God ought not to be subject to the operation of the 
inferior natural laws of decay, acidity or fermentation. 
For it is the substance "which lies behind" the "acci- 
dents" that becomes stale and sour. The "accidents" 
to all outward appearances have practically remained 
the same, the change having taken place in the '*sub- 
stances." And Christ-God's presence in them should 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 209 

preserve them from becoming stale and sour, just 
like certain preparations preserve fruits, meats and 
other perishable matter, when applied to them. In 
view of that, then, if the Eucharist can become stale 
and sour in "eight or ten days," then is that not 
another proof that it is not Supernatural and does not 
contain the Real Presence, but is only as so much 
blessed bread and wine; just as the dragon of the 
pagan god could not be a god, because the prophet 
Daniel gave it something to eat that killed it? For 
the pagans had sense enough to believe that anything 
that could die could not be a god. Well, it is the 
same with the substances of consecrated bread and 
wine, if they become stale and sour at any time, then 
they do not and never did contain the substance of 
Christ-God "whole and entire," or His flesh and blood. 
Is that not so ? 

The further fact that Communion wine creates in 
some clerics an abnormal appetite for liquor, so that 
they become slaves to "wine and women," the two 
generally going together, shows that the substance of 
consecrated wine never was changed into the blood of 
Christ. For surely the blood of Christ ought to be a 
stronger alkaloid, or whatever it might be called, on 
the heart and soul of man than the mere "appear- 
ances," substanceless matter, of wine and ought to 
counteract its stimulating and intoxicating nature and 
taste, so that it really should and would transform 
persons of normal, or even of passionate, natures and 
fiber and heredity into total abstainers, or to crave 
only for those things for which Christ had a liking 
and aspiration, instead of the wine transforming them 
into "slaves of sensuality," as it does quite a few 
clerics. For it is supposed that "like begets like." 

14 



210 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

And if it will not do that, then of what earthly use 
and good is a Eucharistic Christ-God received in Com- 
munion? So, then, if Communion wine creates in 
some clerics of normal, or even of passionate, natures, 
who were the former and were moderate users of 
liquors at their ordination, an abnormal appetite for 
liquor, then is that not a proof the consecrated wine does 
not contain the blood of Christ? Yes. For in Com- 
munion or by it, it is supposed Christ's — 

Soul compenetrates and transforms our souls, so that, as 
the Apostle words it, "it is now no longer we that live, but 
Christ liveth in us" (The Sacramental Life of the Church, Rev. 
B. J. Otten, S. J., p. 119). 

And surely Christ does not "live" in those who 
overload themselves with liquor when the temptation 
to do so presents itself. There is no Real Presence of 
Christ-God in the Eucharist, then, is there, if Com- 
munion wine creates in some clerics an abnormal 
appetite for liquor? No. And if there is none in 
Communion wine then there is also none in Com- 
munion bread. The Eucharist, then, does not contain 
the Real Presence, does it? Hardly. 

We have now seen in various ways, in the pre- 
ceding pages of this work, that there is no Real Pres- 
ence of Christ in the Eucharist, and that the doctrine 
must therefore be an error, etc. Such being the case, 
then was not the discovery that the Catholic doctrine 
of the Real Presence is an error, etc., in itself a 
sufficient reason for my becoming a non-Catholic and 
leaving the Church, even without taking into con- 
sideration other errors she teaches? 

And as the Eucharist is, as we saw, the Church's 
most important doctrine in the whole of Catholic 
theology," her "central dogma," where "all the dogmas 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 211 

of her holy faith come to a focus," "the very soul of 
the Church" and the "keystone of Catholic worship 
and center of religious faith," then it is inevitable that 
with the undermining of the doctrine other doctrines 
based upon it must necessarily fall with it. And that 
they do. I will give a few instances to show that such 
is the case. 

I. That of the Mass, of which the Real Presence 
of Christ in bread and wine is indispensable and neces- 
sary — 

In order to represent the actual separation of the blood from 
the body which took place on Calvary (What the Church 
Teaches, Rev. Edwin Drury, p. 251). 

Thus, without a Real Presence, removing from the 
Mass its supposed sacrificial and expiatory phases, and 
making it only a make-believe, a formal cererhony, a 
sham, which it really is if — 

Since the resurrection of Christ. His body is impassible, and 
His blood can no longer be really separated from His flesh (The 
Real Presence, Rev. C. F. Smarius^ S. J. p. 33), 

and for which Catholics give to clerics "stipends" of 
from one to five or more dollars each, every time they 
want a Mass said for a special intention or purpose, 
that being the charges made for a Mass of one kind 
or another. 

The Bishop has laid it down, as a general rule for all, that 
the stipend for a Low Mass shall be one dollar, and for a High 
Mass, five dollars (Stories for Catholic Children, Rev, A. M. 
Grussi, p. 130). 

A priest is only bound to offer Mass for a special intention 
when this honorary ["stipend"] is paid (The Correct Thing for 
Catholics, Lelia H. Bugg, p. 84). 

A Low Mass is one where there is no singing by 



212 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

the priest. A High Mass is one where there is singing 
by the priest and a choir. A Solemn High Mass is one 
where there are three priests at the altar and where 
there is singing by both priests and choir. The 
"stipend" for such a Mass is usually five dollars for 
each priest. A Pontifical High Mass is one that is 
celebrated by a Bishop, Archbishop, or some cleric in 
orders higher than a priest, who has an indefinite 
number of clerics to assist him, and where there is 
singing. 

Such masses are said usually only on the great feast 
days of the Church, as Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, 
and where there is any special Church celebration, etc. 
Such Masses are not "stipended" so far as I know or 
have heard. In fact, I have never heard of any one 
ever having such a one said for a special intention. 

Stipended Masses for special intentions or purposes 
are usually said for the following purposes : (a) For 
an indefinite time for the repose of the souls of de- 
parted relatives, friends, or others, who are supposed 
to be in purgatory — not in hell, for the Church does 
not teach that any one there can be prayed or Massed 
out of it — suffering in a fire that — 

The greatest earthly fire in comparison with the fire of pur- 
gatory, can be called nothing else than a delightful garden of 
pleasure. — St. Mary Magdalen de Pazzi's visions of purgatory 
(Perpetual Adoration, 1902, p. 13). 

Suffering in order to — 

Satisfy the justice of God for sins already forgiven (The 
Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, p. 247). 

Which souls the Church says cry out and appeal 
to us by saying: "Have pity on me, at least you, my 
friends, for the hand of the Lord hath touched me," 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 213 

which supposed appeal induces their living relatives 
and friends on earth to become generous with stipends 
and "have a good number of Masses said" for them, 
so that God may free them from purgatory "so much 
the sooner and take them to heaven," thus showing 
that the ones in purgatory who have the more generous 
and wealthy relatives and friends on earth will get out 
of it sooner than those whose relatives and friends are 
poorer and ungenerous. 

The following two voices are supposed to be from 
purgatory : 

Oh, pity me, poor soul! I am nearly altogether deserted. 
Condemned to suffer such torments, and for so long a time. 
. . . . My body they put into a rich coffin; . . . but for 
my soul they will do nothing or hardly anything! The Mass 
on the funeral day, and two or three Masses afterwards, is all 
they have given me. . . . Ah, me! I am almost forgotten! 
Have pity on me, at least you, my friends, for the hand of the 
Lord hath touched me !" [The other voice says] : God be 
praised ! How happy am I ! I was also condemned for many 
years [although I received a Plenary Indulgence on my death- 
bed] ; but my time is shortened. ... A few days more and 
I shall be released! God bless them (relatives and friends). 
. . . With a true spirit of love and sacrifice, they are having 
a good number of Masses said for me. God has been pleased 
to accept their good will: I will be freed so much the sooner! 
Only a few more Masses, so my guardian angel tells me, and 
the good God will take me to heaven (Stories for Catholic 
Children, Rev. A. M. Grussi, pp. 128, 129). 

And in the Church — 

Mass is our chief action upon purgatory (All for Jesus, 
Father Faber, p. 403). 

Mass not only shortens their pains, but also extends great 
immediate relief to these poor souls. ... At every Mass 
many issue from purgatory and fly to holy paradise (The Hid- 
den Treasure; or, The Value and Excellence of the Holy Mass, 
St. Leonard of Port Maurice, p. 89). 



214 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

In the Church — 

A Plenary Indulgence exempts the sinner completely from 
purgatory (A Popular Manual of the Grand Jubilee of 1901, 
Rev. Joseph Jackman, C. SS. R., p. 20). 

If one were to die immediately after really obtaining a 
plenary indulgence, he would go straight to heaven (The Catho- 
lic Register, October 14, 1904). 

A plenary indulgence is usually given by the 
Church to a sick person, in danger of death, when he 
receives on his deathbed the "last rites" of the Church. 
So, then, if any Catholic goes to purgatory after a 
death for which he was prepared by the Church by 
her "last rites," and the Church would have us believe 
that about every Catholic will go to purgatory, then 
of what use was the plenary indulgence the person in 
danger of death by sickness was given by the Church 
when she gave him the "last rites?" Only another 
inconsistency and contradiction on the part of the 
Church, is it not? 

I just stated that the Church would have us believe 
that about every Catholic goes to purgatory after 
death. Well, it seems such is the case according to 
the following: 

Shortly after the saint had another vision. The venerable 
Pope Innocent III died just at the close of the Lateran Council. 
Luitgardis saw his soul enveloped in flames. Greatly astonished, 
she asked: "How is it that thou, such a great and perfect Pope, 
our Father and model, must endure such cruel chastisement?" 
. . . But I must still suffer, suffer till the end of time, if 
thou dost not assist me by thy prayers (Tabernacle and Pur- 
gatory, November, 1906, p. 125). 

When the renowned John of Loewen died, the Carthusians 
prayed with such fervor for the repose of his soul, although the 
holy life he had led gave hope that he hardly stood in need of 
such assistance. He was a faithful defender of justice and a 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 215 

zealous preacher of the holy Gospel. His life was blameless, 
his morals severe. Besides, he had always preferred the good 
of others to his own personal advantage. He had charitably 
assisted many religious orders, and among them the Carthusians 
of Roermond, whose abbey had often received considerable alms 
at his hands. . . . But even this holy and generous man did 
not escape the pains of purgatory (Ibid., November, 1907, 
p. 124). 

If, then, a "great and perfect Pope," and a "holy 
and generous man," "did not escape the pains of purga- 
tory," will not about every Catholic go to purgatory 
after death, to "wash their robes," souls, there, instead 
of cleansing them here "in the blood of the Lamb" 
(Apoc. 22 : 14) ? 

That it makes no diflFerence how long it has been 
since one departed this life, or what one's life and 
character in the estimation of the Church might have 
been, for whom a Mass will be said if a stipend is 
paid for it, may be seen by the following: 

Widow Gaffney succeeded in keeping herself honestly and 
respectably on what she earned by office cleaning, and watching 
sick people at night. She lived in a diminutive trianglar room, 
opening directly into the lane, with a tiny staircase in one cor- 
ner, leading up to a similar room overhead, which was occupied 
by a lodger, a good, quiet girl, who worked in the town. One 
morning after Mass she came into the sacristy and said: "Fa- 
ther, would it be any harm to pray for Henry the Eighth?" 
"No, my child. He was a very bad man, but that is no reason 
for not praying for him." "Well, and could your Reverence 
say a Mass for him?" "Oh, yes; only it would hardly do to 
read his name out among the rest." "Ah, then," said she, as 
she put the stipend in my hand, "I wish you would, for I have 
been thinking may be the poor fellow has nobody to help him." 
Widow Gaffney was an Irishwoman, and therefore not likely 
to have much natural sympathy with Henry the Eighth. He 
had not only become unconscious, but had died ages ago. But 
who can tell? Bad as he was, might he not, even in the throes 



216 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

of death, have repented, and been saved at any rate from hell? 
(Truth, December, 1904, p. 245). 

(b) Masses are said for restoration to health, 
although they did not restore me to health when my 
people a few years ago, and when I was yet a Catholic 
in mind and heart, had some said for that purpose. 
And it seems Masses do not help sick and ailing Clerics 
and Sisters, either; for just see the number of them 
who die quite young, or who linger long and who 
travel from place to place, and from clime to clime, 
with the hope of regaining their lost health, or of 
prolonging their lives here. 

"By their fruits you shall know them." 

(c) For calling down God's blessings on the 
fruits of the earth, although when there are late frosts 
that damage fruits and vegetables, or there is a severe 
drouth, or a hail storm, or crop-destroying insects are 
at work in any locality, or hog cholera comes into a 
neighborhood, the fruits, vegetables, growing crops 
and hogs of Catholics suffer and die the same as those 
of their adjoining non-Catholic neighbors. 

(d) At marriages, so that God might specially 
bless those united in holy wedlock, although some of 
the unhappiest of marriages, full of misfortunes, that 
I know of personally, were solemnized with a Mass of 
one kind or another. While some of the happiest of 
marriages, full of fortune, that I know of, are those 
of Protestants, which certainly were solemnized with- 
out Masses; all of which proves, if "by their fruits you 
shall know them" is a truism, that there is absolutely 
nothing much but error, etc., attached to or about 
Masses. Is that not quite evidently so? 

There are other "special intentions" for which 
stipended Masses are said, but those mentioned are the 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 217 

principal ones, and so I will not mention any more 
of them. 

Now back to where we digressed, where it wa3 
being shown what doctrines fall with the undermining 
of the doctrine of the Real Presence. 

2. That of indulgences, one of which is the fol- 
lowing : 

May 18, 1907, the Church granted an indulgence of seven 
years and seven quarantines to all the faithful who look with 
faith, devotion and love at the Sacred Host at the moment of 
elevation (in Mass), and say at the same time the words, "My 
Lord and my God!" The same indulgence is granted also at 
other times whenever the Sacred Host is solemnly exposed on 
the altar [as at Forty Hour Devotions, etc.], and we fulfil the 
same conditions. Persons who practice this devotion daily can 
gain a plenary indulgence once every week, if, in addition 
they also receive Holy Communion (Benedictine Parish 
Monthly, November, 1907, p. 7). 

If, then, the Sacred Host is really not God, so that 
one can not truthfully say ^hen looking at it, "My 
Lord and my God!" as children do in a body at 
Parochial school Masses, for instance, then is not an 
indulgence based on the Real Presence of God in 
the Eucharist undermined, and becomes the same as 
nothing? Among other indulgences that are thereby 
undermined are the Plenary Indulgences of the Sacred 
Heart Fridays, the first Friday of every month in the 
year, the Forty Hour Devotion Indulgences, and all 
Indulgences in which the reception of Communion is 
one of the "conditions." 

An indulgence does not mean a license to sin, as 
many non-Catholics have been taught or been led to 
believe, neither does it have to be paid for, but means 
the following: 



218 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

An Indulgence is simply a remission in whole (Plenary 
Indulgence) or in part (Partial Indulgence), through the su- 
perabundant merits of Jesus Christ and His saints, of the tem- 
poral punishment due to God on account of sin, after the guilt 
and eternal punishment have been remitted (The Faith of Our 
Fathers, James Cardinal Gibb»ns, p. 428). 

That makes it appear as though the Church had a 
monopoly or "corner" on the "superabundant merits 
of Jesus Christ," and that they are not as free as air 
and sunshine, and that she has the prerogative of dis- 
pensing them or doling them out, and that they can 
not be freely appropriated, as air and sunshine, by 
each individual at will, "through faith in His blood" 
(Rom. 3:25). 

3. That of Benediction with the Blessed Sacra- 
ment, making it the same as though it were made 
with an empty Monstrance, or with a picture of Christ, 
or with a piece of simply blessed bread. Such a 
Benediction, then, would be nothing more than a make- 
believe, etc., and it makes the display of many lighted 
candles — 

On the altar, unreasonable, unnecessary and meaningless 
(Reasonableness of Catholic Ceremonies and Practices, Rev. 
J. J. Burke, p. 32). 

4. That of the supposed supernatural Communion 
with the Eucharist, thus reducing it to a level with, if 
not beneath, the comprehensible and Scriptural Com- 
munion of the "Protestant bodies," which observe the 
ordinance to show "the death of the Lord, until He 
come," with the use of simply blessed bread and wine, 
as Christ and His disciples did at the Last Supper. 
And can one not specially remember another at his 
banquet without eating him, like specially remember- 
ing George Washington at a banquet in honor of his 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 219 

birthday, where he is not eaten? Yes. Well, it is 
the same with specially remembering Christ at His 
banquet, the Lord's Supper, without eating and drink- 
ing Him, notwithstanding that the Church says that 
there must be a "manducation of Christ's real body 
and blood" (The Protesting Christian, Rev. J. Perry, 
p. 57) in order to specially remember Him and "show 
forth His death." By the words, "if not beneath," 
it is meant in the sense that the Protestant Communion 
is a more complete memorial than Catholic Communion, 
because Protestants use, as Christ and the Apostles did, 
both bread and wine, thus making it a more complete 
memorial than is the Catholic Communion with bread 
alone. 

5. That of the Infallibility of the Pope, etc., etc. 
For the following certainly is a manifest error, in view 
of what we have seen : 

He alone is able to fulfill the duties of a Christian life who 
has put on Christ, and Christ is not put on except by the fre- 
quentation of the Eucharistic table. . . . Given at Rome, in 
St. Peter's, this tenth day of January, nineteen hundred, the 
twenty-second year of our Pontificate, Leo XIH, Pope (Catho- 
lic News, April 4, 1900). 

Was that a "Thus saith the Lord" (The Faith of 
Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons, p. 144) ? For the 
Church teaches that when the Pope or the Church 
declares anything it is a "Thus saith the Lord," or 
"The voice of the Church is the voice of God" (The 
Prodigal Son, Rev. Michael Miiller, p. 343). If Christy 
as we saw, is not really present and inherent in "whole 
and entire" in the Eucharist, and the Spirit must be 
received "by the hearing of faith" (Gal. 3:2), then is 
it not manifest that to teach ex cathedra that "Christ 
IS not put on except by the frequentation of the 



220 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Eucharistic table" is an error? And if an error then 
it is not an infallible utterance, and if not an infallible 
utterance then the voicer of it can not be infallible. 
And does not that, then, prove that the doctrine ol 
the Infallibility of the Pope is an error? Yes. 
St. Paul said: 

For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have 
put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). 

That is quite different from that which the late 
Pope said, is it not? Yes. And if Christ is ''put on" 
by being ''baptized in Christ," then by the "frequenta- 
tion of the Eucharistic table" is not the only way to 
"put on Christ," is it? No. Pope Leo XIII., then, 
erred, did he not, when he said that "Christ is not put 
on except by the frequentation of the Eucharistic 
table?" Notice, he did not say: "Christ is also put on 
by the frequentation of the Eucharistic table." Had 
he said that then it would have been different. But 
when he said what he did, then he made a fallible 
"thus saith the Lord" ex cathedra utterance, did he 
not? Yes. The Pope, then, is not infallible, is he? 
No, most manifestly not. 

St. Paul also said: 

This only would I learn of you; Did you receive the Spirit 
by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you 
so foolish, that whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now 
be made perfect by the flesh? (Gal. 3:2, 3). 

From that it may be inferred that he did not teach 
the Galatians that Christ was "not put on except by 
the frequentation of the Eucharistic table," but that 
He, His Spirit, was put on, received, "by the hearing 
of faith," that is, a mental act of the mind and will, 
not a mouth-eating act, "by the works of the law," 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 22L 

going to Communion, as in the Church now. And 
the fact that the Church at different times passed 
laws obliging her members^ "under pain of mortal 
sin," to "approach Holy Communion at least on Sun- 
days and festivals/' then later, on Christmas, Easter 
Sunday and Pentecost/' and, finally, in 1215, "at least 
once a year," makes it evident that during the time 
of St. Paul they received "the Spirit, by the hearing of 
faith" and not by external or carnal rites, the Catholic 
Sacraments, the "frequentation of the Eucharistic 
table/' And it is no wonder, then, they had no laws 
in his day obliging one to go to Communion in order 
to "put on Christ/' "receive the Spirit," and that those 
laws of the Church were not made from the beginning 
of Christ's Church. It was only after the Roman branch 
of the Christian Church reached the ascendency, and be- 
gan to interpret the sixth chapter of St. John in the 
literal sense, which gave greater unction to the "sacer- 
dotal dignity" of her clerics, if they could "out of a piece 
of bread" make "a God," and the method of receiving 
the Spirit was changed from that of "by the hearing of 
faith" to that of the "frequentation of the Eucharistic 
table," that it became necessary to "enact laws requiring 
all to approach Holy Communion" at stated times, re- 
ceive into the mouth the "inanimate" Christ supposed to 
be in the Eucharist. The enacting of those laws is 
another self-evident proof that the Roman Catholic 
Church is not the Church of the days of St. Paul. For 
if it was, then in his day and in the early Church they 
should have had those lav/s, if the Church of Christ 
was to be unchangeable, and Christ gave a — 

Full and complete system of laws, to operate through all 
coming time (The Path which Led a Protestant, etc., P. H. 
Burnett, Rev. Jas. Sullivan, S. J., Ed., p. 46). 



222 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

But as He did not give those laws, as well as the 
law of attending Mass on Sundays and holy days, at 
the founding of His Church, and they were added in 
later times, and as in the days of St. Paul the Spirit 
was received "by the hearing of faith," not "by the 
frequentation of the Eucharistic table," makes it very 
evident that the Roman Catholic Church is not the 
"true and only Church of Christ," nor the Church He 
established, nor the Church of St. Paul's day. Christ, 
unless He is not omniscient, would have foreseen that 
a time would come that the people would no longer 
spontaneously go to Communion and to Mass on 
Sundays, and would be obliged to be made to go by 
law, and He would have given at the founding of His 
Church those laws, "to operate through all coming 
time," had He regarded the Lord's Supper as a 
Eucharistic sacrifice. To say that He did not or could 
not foresee these conditions, and therefore could not 
have enacted such laws, "to operate through all 
coming time/' would be the same as saying He was 
not omniscient and could not know or foresee what 
the future would produce. In view of that, then, do 
not the laws obliging the faithful to "approach Holy 
Communion at least once a year," and to attend 
Mass on Sundays and holy days, "under pain of mortal 
sin and excommunication," prove that the Roman 
Catholic Church is not the Church Christ established, 
nor is the Church of St. Paul's day? 

But be that as it may, St. Paul said further: 

If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His 
(Rom. 8:9). 

They that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh, with the 
vices and concupiscences (Gal. 5:24). 

That is quite different from that of eating in Com- 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 223 

munion a piece of blessed bread, frequenting the 
Eucharistic table, and believe by so doing one has 
"put on Christ," or has "crucified the flesh," has the 
Spirit of Christ and is His, fulfilling the "duties of a 
Christian life," and "keeping His commandments," as 
many do in the following way : 

Were a stranger to pass through the city at the season of 
Lent, were he to see the churches so well filled, and the con- 
fessionals so well crowded with penitents, what a good opinion 
he would form of the Catholics here. Wherever we turn we 
behold eyes filled with tears, countenances stamped with con- 
trition — everywhere signs of sincere devotion. Here truly, he 
would say, Jesus is honored; here He rejoices, here He cele- 
brates a glorious triumph. Yes; but return here in two months, 
in two weeks, even, and the penitent faces will be seen at parties, 
balls, theatres, frolics, in drinking saloons; at the gambling 
table the very same hands; in families, among relatives and 
neighbors, the very same quarrels; in the stores the same false 
weights, the same fraud; the old curses and blasphemies will 
be heard in the streets and public places. This is indeed a 
change of scene, and this change of scene is renewed every 
Easter (The Prodigal Son, Rev. Michael Muller, p. 297). 

(At Easter is the time, as we saw, that all are 
obliged to "approach Holy Communion," "put on 
Christ.") 

Do we acknowledge that Grace is a priceless treasure, with- 
out parallel or equal in the whole of creation? Well, I dis- 
tinguish. With our lips we do, and with our intellects, too; but 
only in theory; in practice we do not. Indeed any one consider- 
ing our lives and studying our aims, aspirations, ambitions and 
desires, would regard us as a set of the most inveterate liars 
that ever lived; and might unhesitatingly describe us, one and 
all, as miserable impostors and contemptible hypocrites, who 
say one thing but mean exactly the opposite. For how is it 
possible (they would argue) that men can honestly believe 
Grace to be the treasure they say it is, while, at the same time, 
they make no appreciable effort to retain possession of it, or. 



224 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

if already possessed, to increase it — ^while, in fact, they are more 
ready and eager to labour, toil, and suffer for anything what- 
soever rather than for it. Indeed, the hope of wealth, or honor, 
or fame, can stir them up to far greater enthusiasm, and set 
their hearts in a far greater blaze, than the hope of any in- 
crease of this supernatural treasure. . . . Our faith is 
sound; yes, but oh! how dead and cold and wanting in power 
and influence. . . . In a word, inconsistency marks our lives, 
is the badge of all our tribe, and extends to almost everything 
supernatural (Thoughts for All Times, Right Rev. Mgr. John 
S. Vaughan, pp. 316-319). 

Well, if "Christ is present after the manner of 
something inanimate," after the manner of something 
dead, "without the principle of life," and leaves again 
"whole and entire" as soon as the "species" have 
"ceased because of digestion," which is "about fifteen 
minutes after receiving," then the foregoing is not to 
be wondered at, is it ? No. For no thrill and warmth 
and spirit are felt when receiving Communion, such 
as is felt "by the hearing of faith," truth, or by hear- 
ing a sacred hymn that is understood. How often 
the few summing up words of sermons, such as, 
"Live the White Life," "Don't be so Small," etc., 
thrill and impress one so much that their force and 
remembrance lingers and influences one's life for 
untold number of days. But no such force, thrill or 
impression is received by the reception of an "inani- 
mate" Christ in Communion. For many Catholics 
receive Communion on Sunday morning, and in the 
evening go to the theater, airdome or moving picture 
show ; and certainly that is an "inconsistency" that 
shows "how dead, and cold, and wanting in power 
and influence" is the reception in Communion of a 
Christ who is "present after the manner of something 
inanimate." And were it not for the fear of criticism 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 225 

of their conduct by Protestants, Catholics would now 
live about the same kind of lives the Catholics did 
when "the religion of all Europe was Catholic," did 
they depend on the inanimate Christ in the Eucharist, 
received in Communion, to thrill, animate, actuate; 
impel and move their spiritual will and conduct and 
life. 

Again, is that having "put on Christ," or "growing 
in grace" (2 Pet. 3:18), to renew the "scene two 
weeks after Easter," when one is obliged, "under pain 
of mortal sin and excommunication," to go to Com- 
munion? And if no one is "able to fulfill the duties 
of a Christian life" who has not frequented the 
Eucharistic table, then are no Catholic children under 
twelve years of age, who are not permitted to frequent 
"the Eucharistic table," and no Protestants fulfilling 
^'the duties of a Christian life?" No one will hardly 
dare say there are none. If, then, some Catholic chil- 
dren under twelve years of age, and some Protestants, 
do "fulfill the duties of a Christian life,," does that 
point alone not prove the non-infallibility of the 
utterance and teachings in question of the late 
Pope, Leo. XIII.? If so, then is not the doctrine of 
the Infallibility of the Pope an error? 

Of course, it may be said that what Pope 
Leo XIII. said may not have been exactly or strictly 
an ex cathedra utterance, and, therefore, it makes no 
difference whether it is strictly true or not. But such 
a reply will not hold good in view of the following: 

When the Church speaks, even when she does not speak 
with all the weight of her infallible utterance, she does in- 
variably give us safe guidance (Essentials and Non-essentials of 
the Catholic Religion, Rev. H. G. Hughes, p. 31). 

Is it "safe guidance" to say : 

15 



226 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

He alone is able to fulfill the duties of a Christian life who 
has put on Christ, and Christ is not put on except by the fre- 
quentation of the Eucharistic table, 

when children under twelve years of age, and Protes- 
tants, who do not "frequent the Eucharistic table,*' 
can and do "fulfill the duties of a Christian life" and 
live "lives of a high moral standard" (Catholic Belief, 
Rev. J. F. Bruno, p. i6o) ? Answer for yourself. Was 
it "safe guidance" in Galileo's case^ when now we 
know that Galileo was right? 

Again, to renew the former scene of sin "two 
weeks" after having received Communion, be it at the 
Paschal time or not, is that growing in grace, or make 
it appear as though Communion is the "most powerful 
antidote against a relapse into sin," and "maketh 
virgin those hearts inclined to evil?" Hardly. For 
if it were, then every Catholic in every age should 
have lived and should live a life "of a high moral 
standard." That is another proof, then, is it not, that 
there is no Real Presence in the Eucharist, and that 
it is not supernatural, when "two weeks" after its 
reception one renews the former "scene" of sin? Yes. 
Nor have such "put on Christ," have they, notwith- 
standing what the late Pope Leo XIII. said? No. 
He was then in error, was he not in what he said ? Yes, 



CHAPTER VIII. 

What does it mean to "put on Christ?" Does it 
not mean to have His spirit and life, be Christ-like in 
character, "grow like Him in tastes, in temper and in 
character?" Yes. Well, did Christ get drunk peri- 
odically or ever? No. Those, then, who frequent the 
Eucharistic table and still get drunk periodically, have 
really not "put on Christ," have they? No. Did 
He use profane language? No. Those, then, who 
"frequent the Eucharistic table" and still continue to 
use profane language, have not "put on Christ," have 
they? No. Was He quarrelsome, jealous, envious, 
greedy, impatient, haughty, a grumbler, a tease, a 
"smarty," a "tough," etc.? No. Those, then, who 
frequent the Eucharistic table regularly and who still 
are quarrelsome, jealous, envious, impatient, proud, 
who still grumble, etc., and who can not get along in 
"charity, joy and peace" (Gal. 5 : 22) with their rela- 
tives and others, have not "put on Christ," have they? 
No. Did he hate the negro, or any other race? No. 
Those, then, who frequent the Eucharist table and 
still hate, despise or abuse the poor negro, who can 
not help that God made him a negro instead of a 
white man, have not "put on Christ," have they? No. 
All such have simply partaken of a piece of blessed 
bread, the Eucharist, have they not, notwithstanding 
what Pope Leo XIII. said and taught ex cathedra? 
Yes. The late Pope, then, was not infallible, was he? 
No. And no Pope, then, is infallible, is he? No. 

227 



228 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Neither is the present Pope Pius X. infalHble. For he 
is called "the Pope of the Holy Eucharist" (Benedictine 
Parish Monthly, December, 1909, p. 5). And as the 
doctrine of the Eucharist is an error, anyone urging and 
exhorting the "frequent and even daily" reception of the 
Eucharist, as Pius X. is, can not be infallible. 
The Church teaches the following: 

He [Communicant] must be fasting, at least from midnight; 
for so the Church commands, agreeable to a most ancient and 
apostolical tradition [1 Cor. 11: says differently]. So that if 
through inadvertence a person has taken anything, though it 
were no more than one drop or crumb, after twelve o'clock at 
night, he must by no means receive (Communion) that day; it 
would be a crime to attempt it (The Catholic Christian Instructed 
in The Sacraments, Sacrifice, Ceremonies, etc., Most Rev. Dr. 
Challoner, p. 100). 

By putting that teaching of the (Thurch and that of the 
late Pope Leo XIII. together, then one v^rho had "after 
twelve o'clock at night" inadvertently taken anything into 
the mouth and swallowed it, could not on that day "put on 
Christ," and to attempt to do so, through receiving Com- 
munion, "would be a crime." Think of it ! Just because 
one should inadvertently take a crumb of bread or cake 
or a drop of water or a swallow of water, as was the case 
with a candidate for First Communion at the time I 
made my First Communion, one could not on that day, 
as he could not, "put on Christ." For without the 
reception of Communion, as Pope Leo XIIL taught, 
"Christ is not put on," and one could then not "fulfill the 
duties of a Christian life," when I suppose one would 
for that day be able to live only a "well-nigh heathenish 
life." But do you believe that on account of thought- 
lessly taking anything into the mouth and swallowing it, 
after midnight, one can not on that day "put on Christ" 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 229 

through the mind and will, or ** fulfill the duties of a 
Christian life" ? No. That, then, shows plainly the erro- 
neousness of the teaching of Pope Leo XIIL and of the 
Church, does it not? For it is certainly an error, an 
absurdity and contrary to the fact and premise that one 
must through the mind and will put on, if one wants to, 
the spirit, life and character of another, to believe one 
can not for the day really and truly "put on Christ" 
simply because one has inadvertently or intentionally 
taken a swallow of water or a drop or a crumb after 
midnight. Is that not so? The Pope, then, was not 
infallible, was he ? For surely one can through the mind 
and will "put on Christ" even if one has just not only 
taken a drop or a crumb, but a "square" and sober meal. 

Such being the case, then, any Pope who teaches that 
"Christ is not put on except by the frequentation of the 
Eucharistic table," as the late Pope Leo XIII. taught, 
is not infallible, is he? 

Again, why should one not take anything "after 
twelve o'clock at night" of the day one intends to go to 
Communion, unless Christ-God really goes with the 
Eucharist into one's stomach, so that it should be free 
of anything that is polluting? And if it be said the 
reason the Church commands fasting after twelve o'clock 
at night is that otherwise some might appear at the 
Communion railing in an intoxicated condition, which 
was the main reason for the making of that command, 
then it seems that if anyone can not drink intoxicating 
liquor after midnight of the day he intends to go to 
Communion, without getting drunk, he is not worthy 
any way to partake of the Lord's Supper. Is that not 
so? For one who would get drunk before receiving 
Communion, if he were allowed the use of liquor after 
midnight, is no better than the one who gets drunk after 



230 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Communion on the day he goes to Communion — ^neither 
one of whom would be worthy to partake of the Lord's 
Supper — the condition into which some must get if 
"women and WINE are usually at the bottom of such 
deplorable downfalls" (Catholic Register, 1908). 

In either event, then, whether fasting or not after 
midnight, Christ-God would go into one's stomach at 
Communion, if there were a Real Presence in the 
Eucharist, would He not? Then think of His being 
"objectively present," a "concrete reality," in one's stom- 
ach! Shocking is such a thought, is it not? And if 
He does not stay in one's stomach, but makes His way 
from the stomach to the heart, without the medium of a 
Host, then why can He not also make His way into one's 
heart, or take possession of it, as the Blessed Virgin does, 
as we saw, at any time one wants Him to, asks Him to, 
without the medium of a Eucharist? Think of that 
again and it may open your eyes to the erroneous teach- 
ings of the Church with regard to the Real Presence and 
Communion, and that a Pope who teaches that "Christ 
is not put on except by the frequentation of the Euchar- 
istic table," can not possibly be infallible. And if such 
a Pope is not infallible, then no Pope is, is he? 

I will here state for the benefit of those who do not 
know what is the real and true meaning of the doctrine 
of the Infallibility of the Pope, or who may have gotten 
a wrong idea of it through reading works written by 
"ex-priests" or "escaped nuns," what it really means. It 
means the following: 

That the Pope can not err when teaching a doctrine of faith 
or morals to the whole church (St. Benedict's Catechism No. ii, 
p. 41). 

The Pope, as successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, 
by virtue of the promises of Jesus Christ, is preserved from 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 231 

error of judgment when he promulgates to the Church a de- 
cision on faith or morals. The Pope, therefore, be it known, is 
not the maker of the divine law; he is only its expounder. He 
is not the author of revelation, but only its interpreter (The 
Faith of our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, p. 149). 

That is the true and only meaning of the Infalli- 
bility of the Pope, he being supposedly incapable of 
erring when he expounds "the divine law," "promul- 
gates to the Church a decision" on how to "put on 
Christ," and interprets revelation, just as the Supreme 
Court of the United States is supposed to render an 
infallible and irrevocable decision when it decides a 
point of law or interprets the Constitution of the 
United States, and as the High Priests of the old law 
when they interpreted the prophecies pertaining to 
"the promised Son of David," saying He "would be a 
great temporal prince." That is all that the doctrine 
means and it does not mean or include the Pope's 
supposed inability to sin as claimed by some so- 
called "escaped nuns" — as though convents were 
enclosed by a twenty-foot stonewall, with locked iron 
gates — or "ex-priests," as may be seen by the fol- 
lowing: 

Catholicism teaches that the Pope of Rome is infallible and 
can not sin, neither can he make a mistake (A Certain Book, 
by an "Ex-Priest"). 

The same book also contains the following: 

Catholics are assured that by paying a few dollars into the 
coffers of the priest they can have their sins pardoned. . . . 
The followers of Catholicism are taught that by the payment 
of a few dimes they can have their sins remitted and par- 
doned; thus you will see that crime has no terrors for such a 
class, as they believe that when they have committed a crime 
all they have to do is to go to the priestcraft and have their 



232 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

sins pardoned in exchange for perhaps a part of the money 
which they gained in their criminal transaction. ... A Roman 
Catholic can swear, break the Sabbath, dishonor his parents, 
lie, steal, commit adultery, get drunk and commit any other 
crime that he chooses, provided that he returns to the con- 
fessional box and pays for having his sins pardoned. 

Now, the claims that the Pope "can not sin," that 
a Catholic can commit any "crime that he chooses" 
and that he can get it pardoned "by paying a few 
dollars (or any other sum), into the coffers of the 
priest," in the "confessional box," or anywhere else, 
are, if the writer is really an "ex-priest," not merely 
untruths, but lies, plain, bare-faced lies! For he 
knows, if he ever was a Catholic priest, or even only 
a layman, that the Church, or "CathoHcism," teaches 
nothing of the kind. He knows that the Church 
teaches that — 

The Pope is not impeccable ; on the contrary, any Pope may 
fall into sin (Catholic Belief, Rev. J. F. Bruno, p. 71), and 
that he confesses his sins every week (The Faith of Our 
Fathers, James (Jardinal Gibbons, p. 147). 

And, of course, to "confess every week" implies 
newly committed sins to confess. He knows that 
instead of "the followers of Catholicism" being taught 
they can go to "the priestcraft and have their sins 
pardoned in exchange for perhaps a part of the money 
which they gained in their criminal transaction," they 
are taught that in order to obtain absolution, "pardon," 
they must make restitution and — 

Restore ill-gotten goods, or to make compensation for 
wrong done to your neighbor when it is in your power to do 
so (Catholic Belief, p. 303). That he is obliged to have a firm 
purpose of amendment, to promise restitution, if he has de- 
frauded his neighbor, to repair any injury done his neighbor's 
character (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 414). 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 23S 

Now, in view of the foregoing, and that a 
lie is to tell something as being true when one knows 
positively that it is not true, while an untruth is to 
tell something as being true when one does not posi- 
tively know it is not true, then are not the foregoing 
assertions of an **ex-priest" not merely untruths, but 
lies? Plain lies? Bare-faced lies! 

His book abounds with misrepresentations of 
Catholic teachings and practices, and is filled up 
mainly with narratives of the supposed immoralities 
and licentiousness of the "priestcraft" and of nuns in 
convents, all of which are nothing but sensational lies 
and unsavory rot! Books of that kind, instead of 
turning fair-minded people against the Church, which 
seems to be his main object, or converting Catholics 
to Protestantism, really only tend to turn them 
towards it and to convert them to Catholicity, or to 
make her lukewarm members more firm and active in 
their faith. For after non-Catholics read a book of 
that kind they will usually want to investigate for 
themselves to see if the Church really teaches and 
practices such "abominations," and if her clerics and 
nuns are as immoral and licentious as the book 
claims, and when they find those claims to be untrue, 
which they are, as a rule, they will usually become 
Catholics if they are in any way religiously inclined 
and are not members, or not very firm members, of 
any church, thus producing the opposite result of that 
which the book presumably was intended to accomplish. 

So, then, after this when you read a sensational 
book, full of the supposed "abominations" the Church 
teaches and practices, and of narratives of the sup- 
posed immoralities and debaucheries of the "priest- 
craft" and nuns, written by a so-called "ex-priest," or 



234 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

"escaped nun," then read and digest its contents with 
a big grain of salt or doubt of its truthfulness, even 
though its writer claims to be willing and is — 

Qualified to go before not only any official who has the 
power to administer an oath and to make oath to the truthful- 
ness of every assertion made herein, but I am willing to meet 
my God around the great white throne in heaven [which I do 
not believe he will ever see, unless he repents of his lies and 
makes reparation for them] and stand upon the declarations 
herein contained (Book by an Ex-Priest). 

We have now seen what is meant by the Infalli- 
bility of the Pope, and that it does not mean he "can 
not sin," but that he can not err when "teaching a 
doctrine of faith or morals to the whole Church." 
But by what we have seen, the Pope can err and has 
erred in teaching. 

But now it may be said, as some Catholics have 
said to me, because I claimed -that Popes could err 
and have erred, as the Jewish high priests could and 
did, and that the Church over which the Popes had 
been placed could err and was teaching some errors, 
that— 

If the Church has erred, then Christ has lied; for He said: 
"Thou art Pet^, and upon this rock I will build My Church, 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it;" 

or to say that she erred would be to "deny, at least 
implicitly, the Divinity of Christ" (An Hour With a 
Sincere Protestant, Rev. J. M. Schleuter, S. J., p. 5). 
Because Christ said "the gates of hell shall not pre- 
vail against" His Church, does that mean that no one 
of the "teaching body of the Church," from the Pope 
down to the lowest Cleric, could possibly teach a single 
error or errors ? By no means does it mean that. But 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 235 

it means that persecutions, physical or otherwise, the 
teachings resting on visions and revelations of Saints 
since the days of Christ and the Apostles, which are 
the bases, and the only bases, of many of the teach- 
ings of the Church, as, for instances, the Scapular of 
the special protection of the Blessed Virgin, the 
Rosary, the Sacred Heart promise of "final penitence" 
and Communion on the "first Friday of each month," 
etc., and the laws and commandments of men^ should 
not supplant and destroy, and be "besides," His teach- 
ings, or Church. That is what is really meant by "the 
gates of hell shall not prevail against" His Church. 
And with regard to the claim, to say the Church fell 
into error, would be to "deny the Divinity of Christ ;" 
the Jewish Church could also say, to say she erred 
with regard to the prophecies pertaining to the "prom- 
ised Son of David," and her attitude towards Christ, 
would be to "deny, at least implicity, the very exist- 
ence of God, who made our High-Priest and the teach- 
ing body of our Church infallible" (Annotation to 
Deut. 17:8; Doctrinal Catechism, Rev. Keenan, pp. 

369, 370). 

It may be said further: 

If the Church fell into error and corruption in the course 
of time, then the gates of hell prevailed against her. . . . 
Moreover, in sending His Apostles into the whole world to 
teach and baptize, to guide and to command, He said: "Behold, 
I am with you all days, even unto the end of the world." Here 
He solemnly pledges His word that He would abide with His 
Church always. How could the Church become corrupted with 
the abiding presence of Christ? (Spiritual Pepper and Salt, 
Right Rev. Wm. Stang, D. D., p. 111). 

How could Popes, Clerics and laymen sin, become 
guilty of Church "graft," "depravity of morals," "most 



236 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

corrupt lives," as we saw, with "the abiding presence 
of Christ," even in "concrete reality," and when it 
says He — 

Is able to preserve you without sin, and to present you spot- 
less before the presence of his glory ( Jude i. 24) ? 

And how could the Jewish Church fall "into error 
and corruption in the course of time," with the abiding 
presence of God, so that she failed to see in Christ 
the long "promised Son of David," and be accused by 
Him of being "blind guides" (Matt. 23 124) ? Yet the 
Jewish Church is regarded by the Catholic Church as 
having been infallible and was preserved from error, 
as we will see later. 

Again, if Christ would "abide with His Church 
always" in a Eucharist, as we saw the Church says He 
would, and from which "no voice ever comes," then 
how can such an "inanimate," voiceless Eucharistic 
Christ prevent the Church, which disregarded Gal. 1 :8, 
and made the purported revelations received by 
isolated Saints during the centuries following the days 
of Christ and the Apostles the bases of some of her 
teachings, practices and devotions, from falling into 
error and idolatry? And why did not the "always 
abiding with the Church" Eucharistic Christ-God tell 
the Church to pay no attention to the purported reve- 
lations received by Margaret Mary and others who 
claimed to have received certain revelations, which the 
Church has made the bases of some of her teachings, 
etc., and of which the Apostles said not a word? 

A Christ present, "after the manner of something 
inanimate," cannot preserve the Church from falling 
into error and idolatry. And it is to the Eucharistic 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 237 

Christ that the Church looks to for her Christ, as 
may be seen by the following: 

Without the Holy Eucharist, the world would be empty, the 
temple of God desolate, the soul cold, the heart lonely. Were 
the Saviour not present in His adorable Sacrament, where 
would we find Him? In His Holy Scriptures, but in these He 
speaks from afar. . . Our contemplation of how He is 

in heaven would but giVe us hope; we can not live upon medi- 
tation and hope alone. For that reason Jesus Christ has in- 
stituted the wonder of love, the Holy Eucharist (Sentinel of The 
Blessed Sacrament, April, 1909, p. 126). 

The Church, then, may fall "into error and corrup- 
tion in the course of time," if she expects and looks 
to "the Saviour present in His adorable Sacrament," 
the Eucharist, from which "no voice ever comes," to 
preserve her from falling into error and idolatry, or 
"corruption," and yet the "gates of hell" NOT have 
"prevailed against" His teachings, or Church ; for they 
are yet to be found in the Scriptures. For to "pre- 
vail," in one sense, means to predominate, obtain, 
succeed, overthrow, destroy. And that is no doubt 
what Christ meant when He said that "the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against" His Church, and not 
that no one or no church, which heeded revelations 
made since the "beginning of the Church," and dis- 
regarded Gal. 1 :8, could teach a single error or errors. 

It may also be asked, as Clerics have asked those 
who talked with them about my claims that the Pope 
and Church erred: 

Why should I, an ignorant and illiterate person, know better 
than did the great minds of the Church, as, for instances, St. 
Thomas, St. Jerome, etc., and I be right and they should have 
been wrong? 

No doubt that was about the way the High-Priest, 



238 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

the supposed infallible head of the Jewish Church 
(The Faith of Our Fathers, pp. ii8, 119) ; the Scribes 
and Pharisees, the "great minds" of the Jewish Church, 
who were also regarded as "infallible teachers" (Doc- 
trinal Catechism, pp. 369, 370), queried about those 
whom they regarded as "ignorant and illiterate,*' be- 
cause such believed in Christ while the "great minds" 
of the Jewish Church did not. The following would 
indicate that such might have been the case: 

They (Scribes and Pharisees) answered and said to him: 
Thou wast wholly born in sins, and do.st thou teach us? And 
they cast him out (John 9:34). 

Now seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understand- 
ing that they were illiterate and ignorant men, they (high priest 
and others) wondered; and they knew that they had been with 
Jesus (Acts 4: 13). 

By paraphrasing that a little, the Church would 
about say the following to me, because I am "ignorant 
and illiterate:" 

Thou are wholly ignorant and illiterate, and dost thou teach 
us; that is, the Pope and the teaching body of the Church? 
What presumption! 

Now, did the "great minds" of the Jewish Church, 
who rejected Christ as the "promised Son of David," 
"know better" than did the once blind man, who "wast 
wholly born in sin," and the "illiterate and ignorant" 
Peter and John, because the latter believed in Christ 
as being the "promised Son of David?" No. Persons., 
then, of "great minds," superior intellect, eminent learn- 
ing, church position and "authority" are not always 
right and the "ignorant and illiterate" always wrong, 
are they? No, not by a good deal. Nor were the 
"great minds" of the Church, and early Church Fathers 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 239 

(The Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 339, 34o), who believed 
in and taught the Real Presence, any more infallible 
teachers than was Pope Leo XIII., who said that 
"Christ is not put on except by the frequentation of 
the Eucharistic table." Nor were they any more in- 
fallible than were the Jewish Church Fathers from 
the 15th to the 1st centuries B. C, who taught that 
the "promised Son of David would be a great temporal 
prince." Nor are "the mural decorations of the Cata- 
combs," which are supposed to be "full of the doctrine 
of the Eucharist" (The Church and The Catacombs, 
P. F. C. Costelloe, M. A., p. 16), infallible silent voices 
or witnesses that make the doctrine true. Nor did the 
practice of the primitive Christians of burying a 
Host with the dead, make the doctrine true. 

A venerable author of an ancient life of St. Basil tells us 
that the illustrious Pontiff, after having celebrated the holy 
mysteries, divided the Host into three parts, consumed the first 
with great respect, reserved the second to be deposited in his 
tomb, and placed the third in a golden dove which suspended 
over the altar (Sentinel of The Blessed Sacrament, January, 
1908, p. 15). 

So great was the faith of the primitive Christians in the 
virtue of the Holy Eucharist that, not content with giving it to 
the. living, they also placed it in the grave with the dead, in 
order that it might be a safeguard against the wiles of the 
devil, and as a companion for that body which had been through 
life, in virtue of the participation of the sacraments of the 
Church, the temple of the Holy Ghost. But there were other 
reasons for this strange practice. Many believed, in simplicity 
of mind, that the Blessed Sacrament in this case would answer 
as a substitute for the last rites of the Church, should it happen 
that the person had died suddenly or otherwise unprepared. It 
is generally said a stop was put to this practice by a miracle 
which was witnessed at the grave of a person recently buried. 
. . . The earth was scattered, as before, in all directions. 
This led to an examination as to the probable cause, and as it was 



240 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

found that the Blessed Sacrament sprang forth from the body 
of the deceased person, it was concluded that it was a portent 
of the displeasure of God. The custom, it is said, ceased from 
that time. . . . The practice, as bordering on irreverence, 
was very early condemned, first by the third Council of Car- 
thage, in A. D. 393, and afterwards by those of Auxerre, in 
France, and Trullo, at Constantinople. In examining ancient 
customs, we must be careful not to form hasty conclusions, and 
condemn our fathers in the faith for what may seem irreverent 
to us, but was never so intended by them (A History of the 
Mass, Rev. John O'Brien, A. M., pp. 378, 379), 

By those two quotations it may be seen that an 
ancient "illustrious Pontiff" and " fathers in the faith," 
who had a Host placed in the grave with their dead 
bodies, were not infallible. For if they had been they 
would not have practiced a religious rite of faith that 
was a "displeasure of God," and which practice was 
condemned in Councils, "in A. D. 393," and later. And 
the fact that Councils, whose decrees and findings had 
to be ratified by a Pontiff, in order to make them valid 
and binding, condemned a religious rite or practice 
of an ancient "illustrious Pontiff," makes one or the 
other Pontiff, Pope, as having been in the wrong, in 
error, and not infallible. For if the "illustrious Pon- 
tiff" had been infallible, and was guided by the Holy 
Ghost, he would have seen that what he did was a 
*Mispleasure of God," and he would then not have 
practiced what he and the ancient "fathers in the 
faith" did. And if the "illustrious Pontiff" was infalli- 
ble and in the right, then the Councils that condemned 
the practice of the "illustrious Pontiff" and of the 
"fathers in the faith," were in the wrong, in error, and 
not infallible. Is that not so? Yes. It is only the 
blind who cannot see in the last two quotations that 
the Pope and "fathers in the faith" were only fallible 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 241 

men after all. And if they were, then does that make 
the doctrine of the Real Presence true because they. 
'*in simplicity of mind," believed in it? Hardly. 

The foregoing is also in line with the following, 
which is part of a letter that I received from a Catho- 
lic writer: 

I quoted St. Ignatius to you. He learned Christian doctrine 
from no less a personage than St. John the Evangelist, the 
writer of the chapter (John 6th) of the Bible we are discussing. 
Who do you suppose knows the more of the proper interpreta- 
tion of John VI — ^his disciple or you, nineteen hundred years 
later? 

In reply to that one might ask: 

"Who do you suppose knew the more of the proper inter- 
pretation of" the prophecies pertaining to the "promised Son of 
David," the supposed infallible Jewish Church Fathers, High 
Priests, Rulers of the Synagogue, Scribes and Pharisees, of all 
ages from the beginning of the time when the prophecies began 
to be interpreted in such a way that they believed the promised 
Son of David would be a "great temporal prince," or the "illit- 
erate and ignorant" Peter and John (Acts iv. 13), who, the 
Jewish Church said, "knoweth not the law" (John vii. 49) — ^that 
is, its "proper interpretation" — because they accepted Christ as 
the Messiah, while the Jewish Church did not? 

Here it might further be said: 

Did Peter and John and the other Apostles, five hundred 
or more years later than the disciples of Moses and Isaiah and 
the other prophets, who began to interpret the prophecies in such 
a way as to lead the Jews to believe the "promised Son of 
David would be a great temporal prince," know "more of the 
proper interpretation of" the prophecies than did the disciples 
of Moses and Isaiah and the other prophets, or know more than 
did the "teaching body of the Jewish Church," which rejected 
Christ as the promised Messiah? 

And did not the Galatian Christians, whom St. Paul 

16 



242 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

himself taught Christian doctrine, already in his day 
become "bewitched" (Gal. 3:1) into believing that the 
Spirit was to be received "by the works of the law" 
(Gal. 3:2) instead of "by the hearing of faith?" Yes. 
And what "Spirit" did he mean? Why, the Spirit of 
Christ. Read the following and see if that is not the 
case: Rom. 8:2; Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 3:16, 17; 
I John 3:24, etc. And that Spirit is not received 
by the reception of the Eucharist, but "by faith" (Eph. 
3:17), "by the hearing of faith" (Gal. 3:2). And that 
way of receiving the Spirit is in accordance with the 
way Christ said it was to be received when He said: 

The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his 
voice (John iii. 8). 

And the fruits of that Spirit — not of Communion 
— are: 

Charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longa- 
nimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continency (or self-control), 
chastity (Gal. v. 22, 23). 

And they that do those things 'of the spirit, shall 
reap life everlasting" (Gal. 6 :8). In view of that, then, 
were not the Galatians "bewitched" when they were 
led to believe that the Spirit was not to be received 
"by the hearing of faith?" Yes. If, then, people in 
the days of the Apostles already were "bewitched" by 
teachers of Christian doctrine, whom no doubt St 
Paul himself placed over them, then why may not St. 
Ignatius, or any other early Church Father, have be- 
come "bewitched" into believing that the soul could 
be reached and nourished, or the Spirit be received, 
or Christ be "put on," by putting something sup- 
posedly Christ into the mouth, "by the flesh," "frequ- 
entation of the Eucharistic table," and begin to inter- 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 243 

pret John VI. in the literal sense? But now it may 
be said, as the writer further said: 

Was not St. Paul an early father, and was not St. Ignatius, 
a disciple, the bosom friend of St. John the Evangelist, the 
beloved, and is it reasonable to suppose that he did not know 
what the writer of John VI meant, or that St. John did not 
know what Christ taught? 

Saints Paul and John may be called "early fathers" 
but that does not say that St. Ignatius taught what 
they did, just as the disciples of Moses and the 
prophet Isaiah, or the Jewish Church "father" who was 
the first to teach that the "promised Son of David 
would be a great temporal prince," taught what Moses, 
Isaiah or other prophets taught (Isa. 2:4; 9:7; 16:5; 
etc.), or that the one whom St. Paul placed over the 
Galatians taught what he taught. 

But now it may be said, as one wrote me: 

It is against all reason to believe that the Apostles and 
practically all Christians until the 16th century were wrong as 
to the meaning (of John vi. 52-64) of the Divine Founder of the 
Church, and that it remained for your "key" at this late date to 
unravel the "mystery" by making it no mystery at all. 

But the Apostles, and Saints John and Paul showed 
it in their writings by saying the Spirit is received "by 
the hearing of faith," by hearing His voice, did not 
believe as the Church does now, or "all Christians 
until the i6th century" did. And my "key," of which 
he speaks, is, that the soul must be reached, fed, 
nourished, moved, impelled through the mind and will, 
a mental operation — not with the mouth, by eating 
a certain thing — and that, therefore, John 6 : 52-64 should 
be interpreted in the spiritual sense, as we saw, just 
as the prophecies should have been interpreted in the 



244 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

spiritual sense by the Jews. That is my "key" for 
the unraveling of the meaning of John 6th chapter, 
which the Church has made a "mystery/' but which 
IS no "mystery" after it is once understood how one 
receives the Spirit "by the hearing of faith," how one 
puts on the "spirit and life" of Christ, or of anyone 
else, and that it is the Spirit received "by the hearing 
of faith" that "quickeneth" (John 6:64) us to bring 
forth the fruits of Gal. 5 .22, 23. There is no "mystery" 
in that, is there? No. 

The Jewish Church, which feared the "seducing" 
teachings of Christ would undermine her teachings 
and authority, no doubt would have said to a defender 
of Christ, at the time He was accused of pretending to 
be a King, by claiming the prophecies were not to be 
taken in a literal, but in a spiritual, sense, and that 
the "promised Son of David" was not to be a great 
temporal prince, but a spiritual Prince, who would 
reign in the hearts of His people, by His Spirit : 

It is aginst all reason to believe that the Prophets and prac- 
tically all the Jews from 500 to 1,500 years were wrong as to 
the meaning of the prophecies pertaining to the promised Son 
of David, and that it remained for your "key" at this late date 
to unravel the "mystery" of what kind of a King He would be, 
by your saying now that He was not to sit literally upon the 
literal, material throne of David His Father, or in the earthly 
house of Jacob, but that he was by His Spirit to dwell and 
reign as a Spiritual King in our hearts. 

Could not the Jews, who did not want to accept 
Christ as a spiritual King, have said that to one who 
had a "key" to the unraveling of the prophecies, who 
should claim they should have been interpreted in the 
spiritual sense, and not in the literal sense, as the 
Jews did? Yes. Well, apply that to my "key" for the 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 245 

interpretation of John 6th. And if that is applied to 
it, then it may be seen that John 6th does not teach 
a Hteral eating and drinking of something with the 
mouth, nor support the doctrine of the Real Presence. 
But it may now be said, that for me to deny the 
doctrine that I thereby put "my own single opinion" 
against that of — 

The deliberately formed decision of an immense assemblage 
of the best qualified and most competently authorized, legitimate 
judges (Doctrinal Catechism, Rev. Stephen Keenan, p. 168). 

For the Council of Trent, "an immense assem- 
blage," decided or declared: 

K any one denies that the Holy Eucharist truly, really and 
substantially contains the Body and Blood, the Soul and Divin- 
ity of our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore the whole Christ, and 
asserts that it is only a sign or figure without virtue, let him 
be anathema (Goffine, Rev. Leonard Goffine, p. 423). 

Well, the Jewish Church also once held a "Council" 
(Matt. 26: 59-66), and the world knows the result. 
And was its decision a "thus saith the Lord" (The 
Faith of Our Fathers, p. 144) ? 

Now, if any one had refused "submission" to it 
and instead had accepted Christ, then would it have 
been "a great sin and the greatest act of criminal pride 
and presumption" (Doctrinal Catechism, Rev. Keenan, 
p. 168) to have put "his own single opinion" against 
that of the Jewish Sanhedrim, Grand Council, "an im- 
mense assemblage," which was "the best qualified, and 
most competently authorized, legitimate judge" to de- 
cide that Christ "hath blasphemed" and was "guilty 
of death" (Matt. 26:65, 66)? And was its decision 
"consolatory to the heart" of the Jews, when previous 
to that decision they were in doubt as to the real 



246 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

status of Christ, as the Church claims the decisions 
of her Councils, tribunals, are ''consolatory" to 
Catholics ? 

God does not Himself visibly preside [yet say He is a 
"concrete reality" and is "objectively present" in the Eu- 
charist], in this collective body of men, for the purpose of 
deciding controversies, but for this end He organized a tribunal 
in this association (the Church), and delegated to it power and 
authority [like He did to the Jewish Church — see anno, to 
Deut. xvii. 8], to decide with infallible certainty [like the Jewish 
Church did in Matt. xxvi. 65, 66]. Is this not a rational theory, 
beautiful to the judgment and consolatory to the heart? (The 
Path which Led a Protestant, etc., P. H. Burnett, Rev. Jas. 
Sullivan, S. J., Ed., p. 11). 

The very argument the Church makes use of for 
the denial of one to the right of individual interpreta- 
tion of Scripture, which she calls "private judgment," 
the Jewish Church could have used, and no doubt did 
use, when she in her "Grand Council," "tribunal/' 
found Christ supposedly guilty of blasphemy and 
death, and had the "civil arm" put Him to death, and 
when she said that those who believed in Christ as 
being the Messiah "knoweth not the law" (John 7:49), 
erred in "private judgment." Such being the case, 
then an "immense assemblage" may be wrong and 
in error with regard to its decisions of "controversies" 
and in the interpretation of "the law," and an individ- 
ual's "own single opinion," "private judgment," be 
right; just as it also was in the case of Galileo, when 
he stood alone at one time against the decision of the 
Inquisition. 

At a most inopportune moment Galileo forced the Pope to 
send his affair before the Inquisition. In a few days a Papal 
Decree, founded on a decision of the Inquisition [not on an 
enlightenment by the Holy Spirit of Truth] was issued, obliging 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 247 

him to promise that he would no longer teach, as a demonstrated 
fact, that the earth moved around the sun, as such opinion 
appeared contrary to Scripture (Catholic Belief, Rev. J. F. 
Bruno, p. 332). 

We nov^ know that Galileo was right in his "own 
single opinion." Was that Papal Decree "safe guidance/' 
though not given "with all the weight of infallible 
utterance?" And if one in "an immense assemblage" 
is in error, as the Jewish High-Priest was (Matt. 
26:65), for instance, and leads forth with an error, and 
all the others in the assemblage follow him, as the 
Scribes and Pharisees followed the High-Priest (Matt. 
26:65, 66), then will "an immense assemblage" of 
erring or of fallible men make an error a truth or 
make one man infallible? No, not by a good deal. It 
is, then, not always safe or the safest to look to a 
supposed infallible "immense assemblage" or to a 
human being for guidance in religious matters, is it, 
though there may be "wisdom in a multitude of coun- 
sel?" No. Yet there are in this so-called enlightened, 
intellectual and highly educated age some who look to 
a man for guidance in religious matters, instead of 
looking to the "Holy Spirit of Truth" (John 16:13) 
for that, as may be seen by the following, which is 
from a Catholic with whom I had discussed religion: 

When you convert the Pope of Rome to your way of think- 
ing and belief, then, and only then, will I believe as you do; 
and not before that! 

No doubt that was about what the "obedient chil- 
dren" of the Jewish High-Priest and Church said to 
the believers in Christ; that is: 

When you convert the High Priest of Jerusalem to your way 
of thinking and belief that Christ is the promised Messiah, 



248 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

foretold by the prophets, then, and only then, will we believe 
as you do; and not before that! 

It is not always safe, then, is it, to look to a sup- 
posed infallible human being, be it a High-Priest, a 
Pope, a Mormon President, or Mrs. Eddy,* for guidance 
in religious matters? No. 

The argument we just saw is somewhat akin to 
the following: 

It is simply a question as to which knows the most on the 
subject — ^the Church, with the wisdom of the ages, or you with 
yours of yesterday (Plain Facts for Fair Minds, Rev. George 
M. Searle pp. 357, 358). 

It would be presumptuous for any one to put his ignorance 
against the wisdom and learning of eighteen hundred years of 
the Church, to criticise her rules and government, or that she 
could be prevailed upon to change one iota in anything (Extract 
from a Sunda^j sermon in a Catholic Church). 

No doubt the Jewish Church at the time of Christ 
thought the same, that she, "with the wisdom of the 
ages," and her "learning of fifteen hundred years,'* 
knew more and better about the character and arrival 
and appearance of the promised Son of David than 
did the "illiterate and ignorant" Apostles, "that 
knoweth not the law" (John 7:49), and with their wis- 
dom "of yesterday;" and that it "would be presump- 
tuous" for them to think they could prevail upon the 
Jewish Church to "change one iota in anything" con- 
cerning her attitude towards the religion and teach- 
ings of Christ, which she regarded as a "pestiferous 



♦As Mrs. Eddy has since "passed on," having failed to 
"demonstrate" the "unreality" of congestion of the lungs- 
sickness — and death, Christian Scientists can no longer look to 
her for infallible guidance, unless they believe it is in her writ- 
ings and should look for it there. 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 249 

doctrine," a "heresy" (Acts 24:14; etc.), and which 
no doubt will be what the Church will characterize my 
explanation, interpretation and understanding of what 
it means to "eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and 
drink His blood;" what the "bread of life" is; how 
to "put on Christ," etc., as given in this work. 

Again, is the knowledge of the Truth or its revela- 
tion by the "Spirit of Truth," who is the Paraclete not 
only of the Pope and the "teaching body of the Catho- 
lic Church," as she claims, but of every individual be- 
liever, limited to and the prerogative of those only 
with "wisdom and learning?" And does the "Spirit 
of Truth'* reveal to one, through the understanding, 
only according to the degree of the "wisdom and 
learning" one has, or to an institution only according 
to the "wisdom of the ages" it has ? If so, then would 
not the Jewish Church, with her "wisdom and learn- 
ing of the ages," have been right in refusing to accept 
Christ as her promised Messiah, because He did not 
fulfill and measure up to the prophecies as she inter- 
preted and understood them with her "wisdom and 
learning of fifteen hundred years;" and the "illiterate 
and ignorant" Peter and John and the other Apostles, 
whose wisdom was but "of yesterday," have been 
wrong because they accepted Christ as the promised 
Messiah? Yes. The "Spirit of Truth," then, does not 
limit the knowledge of the Truth or reveal it to those 
only who possess "wisdom and learning," and with- 
hold it from those who are "ignorant and illiterate," 
and who earnestly and sincerely pray to have it re- 
vealed to them, does He? No.. 

The Church, then, with the wisdom of the ages, 
or with her "wisdom and learning of eighteen hundred 
years," which does not, like the Jewish Church did not 



250 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

about Christ, pray to have the Truth revealed to her, 
may and can be wrong and in error about the doctrine 
of the Real Presence, and an "ignorant and illiterate" 
person, whose wisdom is but of yesterday, and who 
prays to have the Truth revealed to him, may and 
can be right on the subject. 

The foregoing is in line with the argument that a 
doctrine must be true because it has been the "univer- 
sal belief" for centuries or ages of Church Fathers, the 
Church and her faithful children, and that the doctrine 
of the Real Presence, therefore, must be true, and 
because — 

Three-fourths of the world's Christians to-day believe in 
the real presence. Could it rest on a more solid foundation? 
(Truth, April, 1908, p. 6). 

The following is what the Jews believed: 

The Jews believed that the promised Son of David was to 
be a great temporal prince; that he was to free the Jewish 
people and establish a great Jewish empire. . . . His preach- 
ing and humble life gave no encouragement of these hopes, and 
they refused to believe in Him as the promised Messiah, and 
they put Him to death (Notes on IngersoU, Rev. L. A. Lam- 
bert, pp. 140, 141). 

Now, because it was the "universal belief for cen- 
tures or ages" of the Jews, or of "three-fourths" of 
them, that the "promised Son of David was to be a 
great temporal prince," according to the interpreta- 
tions their Church placed upon the prophecies, then 
did It make it true when Christ came and was not "a 
great temporal prince" that He was a "seducer of the 
people," had committed blasphemy, and that they were 
justified in putting Him to death, because their law 
said that "he that blasphemeth he shall surely be put 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 251 

to death" (Lev. 24: 16)? Hardly. Because it was the 
"universal belief for centuries or ages," prior to the 
time of Galileo, that the earth was flat and the sun 
went around it every twenty-four hours, did such a 
"universal belief" make it true, and make Galileo's 
"own single opinion" contrary thereto an "opinion that 
appeared contrary to Scripture" (Catholic Belief, p. 
332), so that the supposed infallible Pope at the time 
required Galileo "to abjure this opinion condemned 
as heresy, and condemned him to do penance" (Truth, 
May, 1905, p. 22), when now we know that Galileo 
was right? 

The Church says: 

To introduce a new doctrine into the Church, especially a 
doctrine which, according to our adversaries themselves, is too 
deep for human wit, and impervious to human sense, would 
require more ingenuity and craft than the keenest intellect is 
capable of. By what process of sophistry could any individual, 
or individuals, however gifted, have convinced milfions of 
Christians that bread could, by a few words spoken over it, 
become the flesh, and wine the blood of the Son of God? No 
matter how gross the ignorance of the multitude, no matter 
how dark the age in which they lived, can we believe that there 
would have been no opposition made, no remonstrance uttered 
against the novelty! Ignorance favors self-interest, passion, 
sensuality, ambition; but what has ignorance to gain by the 
doctrine of the Real Presence? (The Real Presence, Rev. C. 
F. Smarius, S. J., p. 23) ? 

One "gain by the doctrine of the Real Presence" 
might be that of a ground on which to base the asking 
of "stipends" for the saying of Masses for special in- 
tentions, might it not? 

In the year 1675 Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque 
is supposed to have received from our Lord the fol- 
lowing revelation and promise : 



252 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

I will grant the grace of final penitence to those who com- 
municate on the first Friday of nine consecutive months (The 
Catholic News, November 13, 1901). 

That is certainly a very important doctrine and 
promise, that if true, should have been taught and 
made "at the beginning of the Church ;" for it assures 
the certain salvation of all those who once "communi- 
cate on the first Friday of nine consecutive months." 
The Church has taken that revelation as the base on 
which she rests her doctrine and teaching of the Sa- 
cred Heart, with its Communion on the "first Friday 
of each month" and a Plenary Indulgence, which she 
introduced since the year 1675. -^s that doctrine of 
^'final penitence" is not true, then, otherwise Christ 
would have taught it while on earth — unless He gave 
to the world an incomplete way of salvation, which 
will hardly be admitted — then did anyone make any 
"opposition" to and utter a "remonstrance" against 
its introduction, by quoting Gal. i :8 against it, and 
claim it was something "besides," that is, an addition 
to, that which the Apostles preached, and that, there- 
fore, it is not true and should not be introduced into 
the Church? No. And has not the doctrine or teach- 
ing "convinced millions of Christians" of its truth, be- 
cause most Catholics at this time have made the Com- 
munions of "the first Friday of nine consecutive 
months?" Yes. If, then, a false doctrine or teaching 
could be introduced by the Church since 1675 A. D., 
then could not about any doctrine or teaching have 
been introduced in the earlier ages of Christianity, and 
that those ages were "dark" and grossly ignorant 
enough for the introduction of the doctrine or teach- 
ing of the Real Presence? Yes. And as that doctrine 
gave unction to the "advance of the sacerdotal theory," 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 253 

and gave a ground on which "stipends" might be asked 
for saying Masses for special intentions, there was no 
objection, opposition or remonstrance raised against it 
by any one. And if there had been he or they would 
have been silenced or excommunicated, just as one now 
would be silenced or excommunicated who believed he 
could get the Church "to change one iota in anything," 
and insisted on her doing so. 

The doctrine, then, "that bread could, by a few 
words spoken over it, become the flesh, and wine the 
blood of the Son of God," could easily have been intro- 
duced into the Church," especially a doctrine which 
gave greater unction to the "advance of the sacerdotal 
theory," if a priest "out of a piece of bread" could 
make "a God," just as he, "by a few words spoken 
over" and breathing "thrice upon the water in the 
form of a cross" (The Complete Office of Holy Week. 
Benziger Brothers, Publishers, pp. 489-491), is sup- 
posed to make out of common natural water a Holy 
Water— 

Of most singular and efficacious virtue, having the property 
of purifying everything it touches, and banishing demons 
(Benedictine Parish Monthly, December, 1909, p. 8). 

So, then, in view of what we have seen, do not 
be influenced in your beliefs about the truth of the 
doctrine of the Real Presence, by the arguments of the 
Church, that she, with the "wisdom and learning of 
eighteen hundred years," knows better than an "illit- 
erate and ignorant" person, whose wisdom may be 
but "of yesterday;" that the doctrine is true because 
it has been the "universal belief for centuries and 
ages" of the Church, her Fathers and her faithful chil- 
dren: is the belief of three-fourths of the world's 



254 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Christians to-day;" that no age was so dark, grossly- 
ignorant as to permit of its introduction without "op- 
position" and "remonstrance," or because — 

The whole Catholic Church and her general councils [of 
fallible men], have clearly defined it. Their authority in ex- 
pounding Scripture ought to be as decisive of this controversy 
as it was decisive against former heresies (Clearing the Way,, 
Rev. Xavier Sutton, p. 82). 

And no doubt the Jewish Church thought and 
claimed the same "in expounding" the prophecies. But 
now it may be said, if the doctrine is not true, then — 

Was the whole Church led into error and idolatry? And 
that by Christ her Divine Founder? (The Sacramental Life of 
the Church, Rev. B. J. Otten, p. 97) ? 

Was "the whole Jewish Church led into error and 
idolatry," which idolatry Christ "came expressly to 
abolish" (Question-Box, Rev. Conway, pp. 430, 431, 
and Real Presence, Rev. Smarius, p. ^y) ? And "that 
by God her Divine Founder," that the Messiah "was 
to be a great temporal prince?" Yet the Church re- 
gards the Jewish Church as having been infallible and 
preserved from error, as may be seen by the following, 
one of which is an annotation to Deut. 17: 8: 

If thou perceive, etc. — Here we see what authority God was 
pleased to give to the church-guides of the Old Testament, in 
deciding, without appeal, all controversies relating to the law; 
promising that they should not err therein; and surely he has 
not done less for the church-guides of the New Testament. 

We maintain our teaching body to be infallible, because God 
has made them so; as in the Old Law He made the Scribes 
and Pharisees, who were the public ministers of His Church 
(though often, no doubt, personally sinners), infallible, for the 
safety of those whom they taught. That these teachers of t)ie 
ancient Church were infallible, is more than evident from 
Matt, xxiii. 1— "Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the 



HOW I ^BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 255 

Scribes and Pharisees; all therefore whatsoever they shall say 
unto you, observe and do. Were they not infallible teachers, 
even God could not thus command us to obey them; and surely 
no one will make the teachers of the better Christian Church 
[the Catholic, of course] inferior to these (A Doctrinal Cate- 
chism, Rev. Stephen Keenan, Third American Edition, pp. 369, 
370). 

When the supposed infallible "chief priests and 
ancients," Scribes and Pharisees, the "teaching body" 
of the Jewish Church, "persuaded the people, that 
they should ask for Barabbas and make Jesus aw^ay" 
(Matt. 27:20), and said to the ministers, officers, of 
the law, who would not apprehend Jesus: 

Are you also seduced? Hath any one of the rulers (of the 
Synagogue) believed in Him, or of the Pharisees. But this 
multitude, that knoweth not the law, are accursed (John vii, 47- 
49), (Meaning that if they understood the law and the prophets 
they would see Christ was not the promised Messiah, and they 
would then not be "seduced" by Him and believe in Him), 

were they preserved from erring in "controversies re- 
lating to the law?" And "was God Himself respon- 
sible for the error" they made in interpreting the law 
in such a way that they understood the promised Mes- 
siah would be "a great temporal prince," and because 
Christ was not such when He came they crucified Him 
as one guilty of "blasphemy?" And were the Jews, 
the "multitude," "deceived by obeying" in obedience- 
to the command to "observe and do," when they did 
as they were "moved" (Mark 15:11) by the "teach- 
ing body" of their church to do and asked "for Barab- 
bas and make Jesus away?" And was God "the cause 
of their error," as the Catholic Church claims would 
be the case with those who believed in her, and she 
"could preach error," as may be seen by this? 

If, therefore, the Catholic Church could preach error, would 



256 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

not God Himself be responsible for the error? And could not 
the faithful soul say to God with all reverence and truth: Thou 
hast commanded me [As Thou didst the Jews], O Lord, to 
hear Thy Church, li I am deceived by obeying her [As the 
Jews were for obeying their Church], Thou art the cause of 
my error [As Thou wast of the Jews (?)] — (The Faith of Our 
Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, p. 90). 

That the teachers, the teaching body, the Scribes 
and Pharisees, of the Old Law were by God made "in- 
fallible for the safety of those whom they taught" is, 
however, contradicted by the following: 

They are blind, and leaders of the blind (Matt. 15:14). 

Take heed and beware of the leaven (doctrine) of the 
Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt 16:6). 

And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these 
words, the people were in admiration at His doctrine. For He 
was teaching them as one having power (authority), and not 
as their Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 7:28, 29). 

If the Scribes and Pharisees, the "teaching body" 
of the Jewish Church, had been infallible teachers "for 
the safety of those whom they taught," then could it 
have been said of them that they were "blind guides," 
"leaders of the blind," that the people were to "take 
heed and beware" of their doctrines, when they were not 
as those taught by Christ? And may not the same 
be said now of the Catholic Church with regard to 
some of her teachings, notably of that of the Real Pres- 
ence, and that "the whole Church was led into error 
and idolatry" by her supposed infallible teachers? 

We have now seen what answer can be made, if 
the doctrine of the Real Presence is not true, to the 
question, then, "Was the whole Church led into error 
and idolatry," not by Christ, but by her teachers and 
guides? 

After I, then, became convinced that the Church 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 257 

erred with regard to the doctrine in question, as well 
as with others not noted in this work, I took the advice 
of a Catholic writer, who said: 

To have been born and bred in a certain religion is not 
sound reason for remaining in it when you come to see clearly 
that it is not true (Catholic Belief, Rev. Joseph F. D. Bruno, 
p. 238). 

and left the religion, the Roman Catholic, in which I 
had been *'born and bred." For I had "come to see 
clearly" that she, in the main, "is not true," and I 
wanted to be true to God and to my conscience and 
not be a hypocrite or become one by outwardly pro- 
fessing belief in that in which I no longer believed. 
And— 

How can there be certainty about other points of doctrine 
peculiar to herself, when in one point, and that so fundamental, 
she has thus grievously failed — erred (The Re-Union of Christ- 
endom, London Catholic Truth Society, p. 3) ? 

Had the occasion not come to me to read much for 
pastime, and had not had "too much time to think," 
as a priest told me while I was lying bed-fast, after 
I told him about thoughts intruding into my mind per- 
taining to some of the teachings of the Church, and had 
not "digged a little deeper" than the Church goes with 
her teachings, then I would most certainly never have 
discovered the errors that are to be found in the 
Church, and I would never have become a non-Catho- 
lic, but would without the least doubt or question be 
to-day as good and practical a Catholic as I was before 
I became afflicted and began to read for pastime, the 
much reading also leading me to much questioning 
and thinking, for which God gave me a Thinker, with 
the result as already stated. 



258 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

And if there is anything Catholicity, or the teach- 
ings of the Church, especially the Real Presence, can- 
not stand it is that of reasoning, searching and much 
thinking, or "liberty of thought" to think freely about 
them. That is the reason why the Church would have 
us "beware of curious scrutiny into" anything she 
teaches, and condemns and forbids her members "li- 
berty of thought," as may be seen by the following: 

Thou must beware of curious and useless scrutiny into this 
most profound Sacrament (of the Eucharist), if thou wouldst 
not sink into the depth of doubt (The Following of Christ, 
Thomas a Kempis, p. 791). 

Rome, Dec. 23. — The Pope this morning received the Cardi- 
nals, who offered him their Christmas greetings. The Pontiff 
made a long address, in which he condemned the excessive 
liberty of thought indulged in at the present time (The Catholic 
News, January 1, 1902). 

The Church forbids, as against reason, common sense, and 
the welfare of man, liberty of thought on matters, whether in 
the material or spiritual order, which have been clearly demon- 
strated and definitely ascertained [As, for instance, that "Christ 
is not put on except by the frequentation of the Eucharistic 
table?"]; she refuses to abandon it on those which are still 
open to reasonable question (Plain Facts for Fair Minds, Rev, 
G. M. Searle, p. 297). 

But if we are not to think, or should not think, 
then why did God give us a Thinker and the faculty 
of understanding? Why should we not have the "lib- 
erty of thought" to think and be allowed to think 
about what we believe or are asked to believe? Can- 
not the truth bear free and deep thinking? If any- 
thing cannot bear free and deep thinking, without sink- 
ing one "into the depth of doubt" as to its being true, 
then it is not the truth, is it? No. And that is the 
case with the doctrine of the Real Presence, it cannot, 
as we saw, stand free and deep thinking, "digging a 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 259 

little deeper" than the Church goes with her teachings 
about it, such as I gave it while yet a good Catholic, 
and gave it since I left the Church. I read and thought 
myself out of the Church step by step, and not with 
one "fell swoop" left the Church, as most apostates 
did because of some personal differences with a priest 
or the Church or some member of the Church or for 
some other than doctrinal reasons. I simply had time 
to read and think and be "curious" to know certain 
things, which have been noted in this work. That 
is what led me out of the Church. 

Of course, some may doubt that I ever was a 
Catholic or a good and a practical one, and that I was 
only a nominal one. That the reader may know what 
kind of a Catholic I was before I became afflicted and 
began to read and think for pastime, I will cite an 
instance or two. After I had been about fifteen months 
in a certain neighborhood, two Catholic Sisters, who 
taught in a parochial school in the neighborhood, 
came into the store one morning, I being in business 
then in that neighborhood, when my sister, who a 
short time before had come to the city to clerk in 
the store, waited on them. They must have noticed a 
family resemblance between my sister and myself, for 
they asked her if she were my sister. On receiving an 
affirmative reply, they said to her : 

You ought to feel proud of such a model young man being 
your brother, who goes to church and the Sacraments so 
regularly. 

I was not in the store at the time, but when I came 
in my sister said she had a "compliment" for me and 
told me of it. At that time I was in the twenty-sev- 
enth year of my age, and had been away from home 



260 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

and among strangers in St. Louis, Chicago and Kan- 
sas City for about five years. 

At another time a priest, who for years had had 
a good opportunity to observe my ways, told my 
brother that he thought ''John was too good a Catholic 
ever to lose his faith." The priest said that to my 
brother when my brother told him, in answer to the 
priest's question whether I still clung to Christian 
Science since I came to Atchison, that I had given 
up Christian Science and was practicing the Catholic 
religion as usual. My brother told me that when he 
came to visit me while I was yet bed-fast. For a few 
months before I came home here in Atchison I had 
Christian Science to treat me after materia medica 
said it could not do anything more for me, and after 
friends and life-long acquaintances had urged me to 
try Christian Science as a last hope, although Chris- 
tian Science did not in the end help me, either, and, 
if anything, it left me in a worse physical condition than 
that in which I was when I submitted myself to its treat- 
ments, having been treated by twelve different healers, 
two of them C. S. D's. 

Another time a friend told me that a friend of hers 
told her that she thought "it was so nice in me for 
going to church so regularly with my wife." The 
fact was I was not married and did not go to church with 
my supposed wife but went to church with my sister. 
By that incident it may be seen, then, that even 
strangers to me, for if they had not been they would 
have known that I was not married, noticed my regu- 
lar attendance at church. Such, then, was my practice 
and reputation as a practical Catholic up to the time 
that I became afflicted and submitted myself to Chris- 
tian Science for physical healing after materia medica 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 261 

could do no more for me, I trying Christian Science 
as a last hope, just as a drowning man, it is said, "will 
grasp at a straw." The claim that usually is made by 
the Church when one leaves her fold, that it was be- 
cause one never had been more than a "nominal" 
Catholic, anyway, who tired of her yoke, or who was 
but a "wretched outcast," as it is claimed those are 
who leave the Church, is hardly applicable in my 
case, is it? 

Let the reader examine the list of names [of converts to 
Catholicity, given in the book from which this quotation is 
made], and mark the strong contrast between the character of 
these converts and the wretched outcasts from the Church who 
seek refuge in Protestantism. — A. Y. (The Church What It Is 
Not and What It Is, Very Rev. Michael J. Casey, p. 180). 

Nor can it be said that I left the Church because 
I wanted to— 

Enjoy some temporal good which cannot be gained without 
renouncing the faith (Plain Facts for Fair Minds, Rev. George 
M. Searle, p. 296). 

For I was, when I underwent a change in religious 
convictions, and was no longer a Catholic at heart and 
in mind, still bedfast with, as it were, one foot in the 
grave, the doctors having had given me up to die, I try- 
ing materia medica again after Christian Science failed 
to heal me, and I at the time not expecting ever to get off 
my bed again alive. Neither can it truthfully be said that 
it was because of "the pride of intellect," or that I was 
"stubborn and too proud to accept the teachings of 
the only true Church," as the Church often claims is 
the case with those who leave her fold, that made me 
a non-Catholic and leave the Church. For when one 
is supposed to be at the brink of the grave, as I was 



262 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

at the time, that is certainly no time for one, after 
many years of suffering, to change his religious con- 
victions without good reasons and plunge himself into 
hell at the last moment of his earthly existence, simply 
because the "pride of the intellect," which "arms of 
the intellect," when they began to think seriously, re- 
volted at the thought of Christ-God being in the 
stomach of the communicant; that He is by "natural 
heat" or otherwise mutilated, mangled and deprived 
of His life, and that we "feed upon His blessed body," 
after the manner of cannibalism, so that, then, the 
"blood of God flows in our veins," or that the Spirit 
is received "by the flesh" instead of "by the hearing 
of faith." Is that not so? 

So much, then, for the kind of a Catholic that I was 
before I became afflicted and began to read and think 
for pastime, and became a non-Catholic. 



CHAPTER IX. 
The Invocation of the Blessed Virgin. 

Next to the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ 
in the Eucharist, the doctrine of the Invocation of the 
Blessed Virgin forms, as we saw, "an essential part 
of the Catholic system." That the doctrine is an error, 
the discovery of which would alone be sufficient to 
make a Catholic, who is consistent, a non-Catholic, I 
will attempt to show in this chapter. 

I have nothing against honoring and venerating the 
memory of the mother of Christ, as one would the 
memory of the mother of Christopher Columbus, 
George Washington, Father Damian, Pope Leo XIII., 
or the mother of any one else, nor against imitating 
her virtues and perfections, just as one would those of 
any other good, virtuous person, be that person a 
wife, mother, husband, father or not. But when it 
comes to worshiping her as our personal, omnipres- 
ent, special protectress and invoking her intercession 
or praying to her, then we tread upon the absolutely 
impossible, the erroneous, etc. 

For the Church says the following of her, which 
makes it utterly impossible for her to give us personal 
special protection, or to hear the many prayers that 
are addressed to her, or to a Saint, for Saints are not 
invoked much fewer times than she is: 

Catholics adore God alone. They love and honor Mary as 
the Mother of God and the greatest of His saints, but they 

263 



264 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

know she is only a creature, and that, therefore, to adore her 
would be idolatry (Question-Box Answers, Rev. Bertrand L. 
Conway, p. 515). 

Catholics do not believe that the Blessed Virgin is in any 
way equal or even comparable to God, for she, being a creature, 
although the most highly favored, is infinitely less than God 
(Catholic Belief, Rev. Joseph F. Bruno, p. 227). 

Her honor, therefore, was reflected on her Son. But, while 
He is very God, she is only a human being; she, the Mother of 
Christ, is only a creature — the most highly honored indeed of 
all created beings (Life of the Blessed Virgin, Rev. Bernard 
O'Reilly, D. D., L. D., Haydock's Bible, End of Old Testament 
Division, p. 12, chapter vi., col. 1). 

The Church also says the following, which we 
know is true: 

We can direct our complete attention to one thing only at a 
time; we can follow but one train of thought at any given 
moment. Should we attempt to attend to many different things 
at once, indistinctness and confusion must inevitably result. 
Such is one of the differences between God's knowledge and 
ours (Thoughts For All Times, Right Rev. Mgr. John S. 
Vaughan, pp. 23, 24). 

If, then, the Blessed Virgin "is only a creature," 
is not "in any way equal or even comparable to God," 
is "infinitely less than God," though by God "the most 
highly honored indeed of all created beings," and a 
creature can direct "complete attention to one thing 
only at a time," otherwise "indistinctness and con- 
fusion must inevitably result," then it is utterly impos- 
sible for her to hear and listen to the many petitions 
or prayers addressed to her, and to give us the special 
personal protection the Church claims she gives to 
those who place themselves under her patronage or 
protection. 

It is that which I will attempt to show in this 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 26S 

chapter. And I will attempt to do so with "the arms 
of the intellect," the weapons or method, as we saw^ 
the Church says she will one day use in her warfare 
with Infidelity. 

If, then, the Church will use "the arms of the intel- 
lect" in her warfare with Infidelity, when the day for 
that should come, she certainly ought now to be 
willing to submit the doctrine of the Invocation of 
the Blessed Virgin, and of the Saints, which I will 
interweave at times, to an analysis with the same 
weapons, ought she not? If so, then I will analyze 
or examine the doctrine in question with "the arms 
of the intellect/' which I would define to mean to be 
reason, carnal arguments, understanding, mathematical 
proofs, analogy, etc. 

The following is the way in which I discovered the 
error in the doctrine of the Invocation of the Blessed 
Virgin, which may include that of the Saints, for they 
are not invoked very much fewer times than she is. 

There are supposed to be fully two hundred and 
fifty millions of Catholics in the world. Of that num- 
ber we will say — after allowing six out of every ten 
to be poor praying Catholics, and children not old 
enough to pray — there are one hundred million "prac- 
tical" Catholics who say at least one Hail Mary a day. 
Now a Hail Mary, as follows: 

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art 
thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,. 
Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now,, 
and at the hour of our death. Amen (Any Catholic prayer 
book), 

cannot be said with any devotion in less than ten 
seconds of time, which would then make one billion 
seconds of time of prayers said every twenty-four 



266 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

hours, by only one hundred milHon of the two hundred 
and fifty millions of Catholics in the world. Now of 
the hundred millions of "practical" Catholics, we will 
say that one-half of them, or fifty millions — which is 
getting rather low in numbers — recite or say two more 
Hail Marys daily besides the one mentioned above, 
which would make another billion (twenty times fifty 
millions) seconds of time of prayers every twenty-four 
hours, or two billions so far. Then we will say that 
of all the Catholics in the world only two millions — 
w^hich is certainly a very low number — besides saying 
daily the three Hail Marys already mentioned, say the 
Rosary daily, although I know some who say it more 
than once daily. As the Rosary contains at the least 
fifty-three Hail Marys, it cannot be said with any de- 
motion in less time than five hundred seconds — eight 
and one-third minutes — we have, then, another billion 
(five hundred times two millions) seconds of time of 
prayers, or three billions so far. If now we take the 
scatterings of prayers to her the world over, such as 
the Angelus, extra Rosarys, Litanies of the Blessed 
Virgin, Scapular prayers, ejaculatory prayers, etc., it 
ivill easily make another billion seconds of time of 
prayers, or four billion seconds of time of prayers that 
«he would have to hear and listen to every day of 
twenty-four hours of eighty-six thousand and four 
hundred seconds of time. If now we divide four billion 
by eighty-six thousand and four hundred, the number 
of seconds in a day of twenty-four hours, we get a 
result or quotient of forty-six thousand two hundred 
and ninety-six (46,296). Now if the Blessed Virgin 
■should hear all the prayers addressed to her, even at 
the low estimate made, she would have to listen to 
forty-six thousand two hundred and ninety-six peti- 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 267 

tions every second of time from one end of the year 
to the other, or, in other words, have to listen to 46,296 
petitions at one and the same time, simultaneously, 
every second of time from one end of the year to the 
other. That is true according to "the arms of the 
intellect," mathematical proofs, is it not? Well, can 
she do that if "she is only a creature," "infinitely less 
than God," and if — 

God cannot create a being equal to Himself (Tactics of In- 
fidels, Rev. L. A. Lambert, p. 39), 

vi^hich she would have to be in order to do so? No. 
For no being except God Almighty Himself can do 
that, listen to over 46,000 prayers at one time, simul- 
taneously, without "indistinctness and confusion." 

The President of the United States is by the people 
"the most highly honored indeed of all created beings." 
But could he at one and the same time, simultaneously, 
listen to and answer over 46,000 long distance tele- 
phone calls, were there that many long distance tele- 
phones in the White House, and they all called for him 
at one and the same time, simultaneously, every second 
of time while he were President? No. Well, it is 
just as impossible for the Blessed Virgin, who is, like 
the President, "only a creature," "infinitely less than 
God," to listen to and answer over 46,000 petitions, 
equal to over 46,000 long distance telephone calls, at 
one and the same time, simultaneously. That is what 
"the arms of the intellect" — mathematical proofs, and 
mathematics is from God — tell us. 

Again, is this not also a difficulty and another im- 
possibility for the Blessed Virgin to do, that of under- 
standing at one and the same time, simultaneously, 
the many petitions that are addressed to her in the 



268 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

many different languages in which they are said the 
world over? For the English, the Germans, the 
French, the Italians, the Bohemians, the Spanish, and 
the many other nationalities too numerous to mention, 
all pray to her in their own language, and no doubt 
at one and the same time, too. And if the)'^ do, then 
is that not another impossible thing for her, as well 
as for the Saints, to do, to understand the many peti- 
tions that are addressed to them at the same time, 
simultaneously, in the many different languages in 
which the petitions are made? Yes. 

Insurmountable difficulties and impossibilities are 
to be met with when one analyzes, with the instru- 
ments the Church would use in her warfare with in- 
fidelity, the doctrine of the Invocation of the Blessed 
Virgin. Yet a priest had this to say about the going 
to her for help: 

There on my desk stand two pictures : one is of my mother, 
the other is of the Blessed Virgin. I adore my mother . . . 
and I adore the Blessed Virgin. I can go to my mother and 
confide in her and get help ; so I believe I can go to the Mother 
of Christ and get help. 

That is possible with him and his mother, who at 
the most probably had but ten children to "confide m 
her and get help." But how would it be if his mother 
had one hundred million of adopted children all of 
whom had an equal right with him to "confide in her 
and get help," and they all confided in her and wanted 
her help in special matters, at one and the same time, 
simultaneously? Do you now see the utter impossi- 
bility of going or praying to one who "is only a crea- 
ture," "infinitely less than God," and getting help or 
protection from such a one? 

We must remember that a family of ten children 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 269 

is quite a different one from that of a world of more 
than ten million times ten children or people, so that 
the priest's belief or idea that he can confide and get 
help from the Blessed Virgin, because he can confide 
in his mother and get help, is a greatly mistaken one. 
Here is more of the impossible that adds to the 
already impossible: 

One of the sweetest graces Our Lord gave us was at the 
very close of His life, when, in the person of St. John, He made 
Mary our Mother. What has she not done for us? She has 
loved us, taken joy in us, interest in our work, and from our 
birth she has had her arm around us (The Catholic News, 
September 12, 1900). 

But how can she have her "arm around us," that is, 
give us special protection, when she is not omnipresent 
to us and, as a finite being, cannot be present simul- 
taneously to over one hundred million people? 

The Festival of the Scapular . . . comes from the legend 
that in the beginning of the thirteenth century the sixth general 
of the Carmelite order, Simon Stock, received the scapular 
("which consists of two small pieces of cloth with pictures of 
the Blessed Virgin upon them, which are blessed, and worn 
over the shoulders (under all clothing), hanging upon the breast 
and back") from the Blessed Virgin, which would- be to him 
and to all who carried it, a badge of Her special protection, and 
that Mary afterwards appeared to Pope John XXH. and ad- 
vised him to give more indulgences to this Order than he had 
already granted in 1322 (Goffine, p. 799). 

As it is considered a mark of distinction by men, to have 
attendants wearing their livery, so does the Blessed Virgin like 
to see her servants wear her scapular; it should be a sign of 
their having devoted themselves to her service [as though she 
were God and was to be served instead of God the Father]^ 
and of their belonging to the family [of over one hundred 
million children] of the mother of God. — St. Alphonsus Liguori 
(The Scapular Book, p. 87). 



270 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Let us now see how she has "her arm around us'* 
and what "special protection" one receives for "wear- 
ing her livery," the Scapular: 

Some time ago a lineman on the Third avenue elevated in 

N met with an accident. When he was being examined 

a Catholic standing by noted that the man wore a scapular and 
hurried for a priest. Death occurred within half an hour of 
the accident (The Catholic Register, Nov. 18, 1904). 

If the Blessed Virgin had "her arm around him," 
then how was it that she let him fall to his death? 
How is it that priests meet with many and unforseen 
accidents and deaths, even being shot to death in 
church while performing their priestly duties, if the 
wearing of the Scapular of the Blessed Virgin, which 
all priests and good Catholics wear, is "a badge of 
her special protection?" Why do good Catholics have 
accidents, some of them fatal? "By their fruits you 
shall know them"— the Rosary, the Scapular. 

And if the wearing of the Scapular is "a badge of 
her special protection" from the devil, then how is it 
that Catholics sin so much that they have to go, or 
ought to go, to Confession monthly? For surely to 
go to Confession implies having sins to confess. And 
the Church says he "is the instigator of all sin" (The 
Faith That Never Dies, p. 28). 

It is claimed by the Church and by some of her 
members that it was the devil who put doubts into my 
mind as to the truth of some of the teachings of the 
Church. If that is true, then how was it that the 
Blessed Virgin did not protect me against "the snares 
of the devil?" For I had from childhood on up to the 
time that those doubts came to me prayed daily to the 
Blessed Virgin to "deliver me from the snares of the 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 271 

devil," and even at the time those doubts came to me 
I was wearing her Scapular. 

By what we have noted it may be seen that the 
Blessed Virgin gives us neither temporal nor spiritual 
protection, and that the claims of the Church that she 
does are only make-believes, etc. 

Here is some more that adds to the already im- 
possible : 

At that supreme moment (death) Mary will come to us if, 
during life, we have been faithful in asking her help. "Behold, 
my child," she will say, "I am with thee, thou hast called me. 
How often hast thou said to me, Hail, full of grace. And now, 
my child [one of the hundred million or so], I greet thee, full 
of the grace of my divine Son, who is about to reward thee 
with eternal glory" (The Faith That Never Dies or The Priest 
of God in The Catholic Home, p. 275). 

When a soul, who during life had an especial devotion to 
the Blessed Virgin, is to be released [from purgatory — a nice 
place for the Blessed Virgin to let any one be sent to "who 
during life had an especial devotion to" her], Mary herself 
often deigns to appear, and personally conducts the soul to para- 
dise (Tabernacle and Purgatory, November, 1905, p. 95). 

(Probably she was conducting a soul from purga- 
tory "to paradise" at the time "a lineman," who had 
on her Scapular, **met with an accident," she could 
not be at both places, the doors of purgatory and the 
earth, at the same time.) 

There (in Heaven) we shall gaze upon that blessed face 
which is the delight of Jesus and of the blessed in heaven. We 
shall listen to the loving voice of our holy Mother Mary, and 
hear from her lips the sweet words: "Welcome, my child, wel- 
come home at last" (The Prodigal Son, Rev. Michael Miiller, 
p. 571). 

Is all that possible of being done by one who "is 
only a creature," "infinitely less than God," to be per- 



272 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

sonally present with the dying, when many are dying 
in the same hour all hours of the day, and when some 
are dying for hours before they become really dead; 
to ''personally conduct the soul" from purgatory "to 
paradise," and to "welcome us home at last" in 
Heaven ? No. 

And now while she is supposed to be doing all that, 
there are addressed to her over 46,000 prayers every 
second of time from the one hundred million or so 
^'practical" Catholics in the world. And if it should 
be the month of October or the Lenten season, when 
the faithful should daily "join in the recitation of the 
beads," the Rosary, "in all churches and chapels" (The 
Catholic News, Oct. 10, 1900, and Feb. 20, 1901), then 
the prayers during October and Lent must ascend to 
her at a rate that is far, far greater than 46,000 every 
second of time. Besides all that, they have in Italy, 
France and Belgium "Associations of the Perpetual 
Rosary," where "day and night thousands, succeeding 
each other," recite "the Rosary for blessings on them- 
selves and for the Church" (The Catholic News, June 
26, 1901). That alone is more than one can attend to, 
listen to and hear all those Rosary prayers, who "is 
only a creature," the Blessed Virgin, to whom the 
many perpetual Rosary prayers are addressed. And 
such being the case, it becomes very self-evident that 
the doctrine in question is an error. And if you are a 
Catholic can you still, with "the arms of the intellect," 
give "an internal assent of the intellect" to that doc- 
trine as being true? 

Because some believe, as reported in Catholic pub- 
lications, that they have received answers to their 
prayers to the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints, and that 
therefore the doctrine cannot be an error, is it always 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 273 

certain that the supposed things received were received 
in answ^er to prayers to them, and that they may not 
have been mere coincidences ? I will quote a few testi- 
monials to see if they may not have been mere coin- 
cidences : 

Thanks are returned to the Sacred Heart for employment 
obtained. Our Blessed Lady, St. Joseph, and St. Anthony were 
invoked ... A child of Mary returns thanks to the Blessed 
Virgin for a temporal favor (The Catholic News, Jan. 9, 1901). 

We will now see if those supposed answers to 
prayers to the Blessed Virgin and the saints may not 
have been but coincidences. When I went to another 
city at one time to locate there I advertised once in a 
daily paper for a position, or employment. I did not 
pray to the Blessed Virgin or to any saint to procure 
a position for me, yet within a week I went to work 
in a store which was just the kind I could wish for in 
which to learn a mercantile business. No doubt if I 
had prayed to them to obtain such a place for me and 
had obtained it within a week, as I did without praying 
to them, I would have been led to believe that it was 
in answer to my prayers to them. But if I had so 
believed would I not have been mistaken, the obtaining 
of the position having been only a coincidence? Yes. 

One time, on the last Sunday night in August, 
thieves got into our house and carried away my watch. 
I went to the police station and reported it, at the 
same time giving the officers the number of the works 
and the case of the watch. When a few weeks after 
the watch had been stolen it had not yet been found, 
I gave up all thought of ever getting the watch back 
again. But two days before Christmas — about four 
months after the watch had been stolen — a detective 
from the police department brought the watch to me. 

18 



274 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Now, if I had in the meantime prayed to the Blessed 
Virgin and the saints to recover the watch for me, 
then, on its being returned to me, would I not have 
been mistaken had I believed its recovery was due to 
my prayers to them, and would not its recovery have 
been but a coincidence? Yes. And is the recovery of 
a stolen gold watch not "a temporal favor?" Yes. 
These supposed answers to prayers to the Blessed 
Virgin and the saints, then, may be only coincidences, 
may they not? Yes. And they do not, then, prove 
the truth of the doctrine in question, do they? 

It is the same with those who give testimonials of 
having been healed through the intercession of the 
Blessed Virgin, and at the shrine of some saints. 
Oftentimes after a long period of sickness a patient 
will begin to "naturally improve," as the expression 
goes, and finally get entirely well without either 
doctors, Christian Science, or prayers to the Blessed 
Virgin or the saints. If there is any efficacy in the 
prayers to them, or in their medals, then why do 
Catholics become sick the same as non-Catholics do 
under the same circumstances? If all that were true 
that the Church says about the efficacy of prayers to 
the Blessed Virgin and the saints, and about the merits 
of their medals, then no Catholic should ever be sick., 
or at least if one became sick, to be sick but a day 
or so or until one could get a blessed medal of some 
saint, or could make a Novena. 

Here is what the Church says about the Blessed 
Virgin and blessed medals: 

No infirmity is so malignant that it will not yield without 
delay to the efficacy of the Blessed Virgin's name (Annals of 
the Blessed Lady of Victory, January, 1904, p. 5). 

We had a driving horse that got blood poisoning in his leg. 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 275 

The veterinary surgeon told us there was little hope of saving 
him. I placed a medal of Our Blessed Lady of Victory in his 
stall and he was better in a few days. Now he is as sound as 
ever, for which we thank Our Blessed Lady {Ibid. p. 17). 

The blessed medals of St. Benedict . . . may also be put 
into water, which men or even cattle may drink in order to be 
preserved from or be cured of sickness (St. Benedict's Manual, 
Rev. W. M. Mayer, O. S. B., p. 632). 

Now, if all that is true, then is there any possible 
excuse for a Catholic, or his horses, cattle or hogs, to 
get sick or remain sick? Is not drinking water so 
plentiful that Catholics should always have a plentiful 
supply of it into which a blessed medal had been put 
or could be put, and thus continually enjoy the bless- 
ings of good health? Yes. Yet even clerics and 
sisters, who have or might have, if they were con- 
sistent and believed what the Church tells them to 
believe, all those supposed preventives of and cures 
for sickness, and who pray much to the Blessed Virgin 
and the saints, suffer as much from sickness and early 
deaths as non-Catholics do. Read the following and 
see if they do not: 

Bishop Roe, . . . accompanied by Monsignor Doe, left 
for the South. Bishop Roe has suffered so much from bron- 
chitis and asthma that his physician insisted on the trip for the 
benefit of his health . . . Monsignor Doe has not been in 
the best of health for some time and his physician also pre- 
scribed a Southern trip as quite necessary (The Catholic News). 

(How inconsistent that makes leading Catholic 
Church dignitaries appear to read of their going South 
for the benefit of their health, when, as they are sup- 
posed to believe, "no infirmity is so malignant that it 
will not yield without delay to the efficacy of the 
Blessed Virgin's name," or when drinking water into 



276 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

which a blessed medal had been put it would "preserve 
from or cure" their ailments.) 

Rev. Roe was born ... 41 years ago. . . . His health 
failing, he went to Doeville, Col., where he performed priestly 
duties for two years, when he was compelled to relinquish work, 
. . . and died (The Catholic Register). 

(In this case one may wonder, when "he performed 
priestly duties/' whether or not that included the 
preaching of the "efficacy of the Blessed Virgin's 
name" in cases of "infirmity" or sickness, the merits 
of blessed medals, etc.) 

Sister Doe, aged 46, died in St. Roe's convent to-day . . . 
Sister Doe had been paralyzed twelve years, nine years of which 
she had spent sitting in a chair (Daily paper). 

It was also said of her that she was dying for two 
hours and that during all that time she, as one ex- 
pressed it who was present, "suffered something most 
terribly." In hearing of cases like that or somewhat sim- 
ilar to it, it is enough to make, or it ought to make, the 
thoughtful question the truth of the efficacy of blessed 
medals of the Blessed Lady of Victory or of the saints, 
the use of which is supposed to have cured animals 
which could not exercise faith, so that the merits of 
healing must be inherent in the medals and not in 
the patient's faith in the medals. Yet one who could 
exercise faith, a nun or Sister, who is supposed to 
have been a "Child of Mary," suiTered the same as 
though there were no Lady of Victory medals, one 
of which healed a horse of "blood poisoning," as 
though a horse was more precious in the sight of God 
than a nun, or even priests, who have to change 
climates for their health. Had an apostate Catholic 
suffered as that Sister did, the Church would have 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 277 

said that it was a manifest visitation of the wrath of 
God on one for leaving the Catholic Church, as she 
claims was the case with a reformer or two of the 
sixteenth century who suffered a somewhat tragic end. 

That there is nothing much but error attached to 
the belief in the efficacy of prayers to the Blessed 
Virgin, in novenas to her and in her medals, I know 
by my own experiences and observation. Years before 
I had had any doubts as to the truth of any of the 
teachings of the Church, I made novenas and wore 
Lady of Victory medals, having at one time four tied 
to a string around my neck. Yet I did not receive 
that for which I made the novenas and wore the 
medals, which was for restoration to health. Had I 
at that time been restored to health the occasion for 
reading so much for pastime would not have come to 
me, and I would without the least doubt be to-day 
as good a Catholic as I was before I became afflicted 
and began to read for pastime. 

Neither do I know of one solitary case where 
anyone was ever healed or received any lasting benefit 
in health through making novenas (a novena means 
a nine days' prayer and the reception of Communion 
on the last day for a special object) to the Blessed 
Virgin or the saints, or in wearing "Lady of Victory" 
medals, or in visiting their shrines. Some thought 
they had received benefit from making use of them, 
but it was only temporary, lasting only about as long 
as they could keep their imaginations highly excited, 
after which they would have a relapse and be no better 
than they were before they made novenas, wore "Lady 
of Victory" medals, or visited shrines. That reported 
cures are not always true, I know to be so. Some 
time ago there was reported in the press the supposed 



278 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

miraculous cures of a number of afflicted people at 
the shrine of St. Anne, saying that certain ones, whose 
names and addresses were given, had been afflicted 
with paralysis for years and that at the end of a 
novena one "left the church without support," another 
"walked from the church to-day and it was the first 
time he had walked since infancy," etc. I wrote to 
two of them, the ones just spoken of, and these are 
the letters I received from them : 

I was benefited some at the shrine of St. Anne, St. Anne, 
III, but I still must use a wheel chair and crutches. 

(That is from one who "left the church without 
support;" she "still must use a wheel chair and 
crutches." Certainly a miraculous "cure!") 

Well he is not walking yet but he is a great deal stronger 
than what he was before he went to St. Anne. He walked that 
day by the help of others. He has never walked, he is not eight 
years old yet, but I think after going next year again to St. 
Anne he will walk (From his relative). 

That is how miraculously one was cured at the 
shrine of St. Anne, who "walked from the church 
to-day and it was the first time he had walked since 
infancy," as reported by the press. Draw your own 
conclusions. 

I know of another case where one was not helped 
or cured by novenas, but was later cured by a special- 
ist. A young person about twenty years of age became 
afflicted with an ailment that made him bedfast for 
nearly two years. He got into such a condition that 
after a year or so he was taken to a Sisters' hos- 
pital. While there for months he had the best of 
medical skill and attention, and as he got no better 
novenas were finally made for his recovery. But they 
did him not a particle of good. Had anyone then 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 279 

asked any of those who helped to make the novenas 
why he was not cured or helped, the answer would 
no doubt have been, which is usually the answer in 
cases of failure to cure, that "it was not God's will 
that he should be cured or get well." 

About six months after the novenas were made a 
specialist from another city was called to see him. 
After the specialist examined the patient he told his 
relatives that if they brought him to the doctor's 
private sanitarium he would cure the patient in about 
four months. The patient was taken on a stretcher 
to the sanitarium. Within four months he walked 
unassisted out of the sanitarium, and traveled a few 
hundred miles to his home. After he had been home 
a week or so word was received that he was home, 
"could now walk, was looking well and feeling fine." 
And from latest accounts it appears he is permanently 
cured. Now, if it was not God's will he should get 
well, when the novenas were made for his recovery, 
then why was it that certain non-supernatural means 
later made him well? And what becomes of the 
Blessed Virgin's supposed "incomparable influence 
with her Heavenly Father" (The Faith of Our Fathers.. 
Gibbons, p. 224), if she could not persuade God to 
change His will, and had the patient get well when 
the novenas were made for him to get well? Nothing 
but a make-believe. Think of that question again: 
If it was not God's will the patient should get well 
when the novenas were made for his recovery, because 
he did not at the time get well, then what becomes of 
the Blessed Virgin's "incomparable influence with" 
God, so that we should invoke her and place ourselves 
under her care and special protection? Nothing but 
a "pious belief." For it is utterly impossible for one 



280 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

who "is only a creature," "infinitely less than God/*^ 
to listen to and answer over forty-six thousand peti- 
tions, novena prayers, etc., every second of time in 
the year. 

And the claim, then, that it was not God's will one 
should get well, when novenas were made for one's re- 
covery, and one did not get well, does not hold good, 
does it, in view of the fact that a non-Catholic specialist 
cured a patient after novenas failed to cure him? 

The case in question is enough to open the eyes 
of anyone who would exercise a little "liberty of 
thought," that the doctrine of the Invocation of the 
Blessed Virgin, as well as that of the saints, is mani- 
festly an error, and that it never is because of God's 
will that one should not be healed, that one is not 
healed or cured when novenas are made for one's 
recovery. 

But as Catholics, as a rule, do not judge their 
supposed channels of supernatural and sanctifying 
graces, or things, "by their fruits," there is not any 
likelihood that any of them will get their eyes opened 
to the error of the doctrine in question, and they will 
keep on invoking the Blessed Virgin and the saints, 
make novenas to them, visit their shrines, wear 
scapulars, blessed medals, say the Rosary, attend May 
devotions, etc., etc., and believe that when an ailing 
person is not healed by and through them that it "was 
not God's will he should be healed," though he may be 
healed by a specialist later. 

We will now see what the Church has to say about 
how the Blessed Virgin and the saints can know of our 
prayers addressed to them. 

How the Blessed Virgin and the saints know the prayers 
and wants of those who call upon them is a mystery, if you will 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 281 

. . . But the explanation given by Catholic theologians ought 
to satisfy an intelligent mind [who rejects the findings of "the 
arms of the intellect"] ; viz., that those who enjoy the Vision 
of God [which is called properly "The Beatific Vision"] see and 
know all things "in the mirror of the Trinity" — that is, in God's 
seeing and knowing; because they see His essence, and His 
knowledge is one thing with that (A Short Cut to The True 
Church, Rev. Edmund Hill, pp. 163, 164). 

But since the saints are not omniscient, can they hear our 
prayers? They need not be omniscient to know for what we 
pray. Cannot God make known to them our cares? . . . We 
need not be anxious with regard to the manner in which the 
saints become cognizant of our prayers, since God has a thou- 
sand ways by which to make our needs known to them (Goffine, 
p. 605). 

The power of the Blessed Virgin or the saints to answer 
our prayers no more implies omnipresence than my power to 
accede to the request of a friend three thousand miles away 
implies my presence there. When Eliseus saw the ambush pre- 
pared for the king of Israel, was he necessarily in Syria at the 
time? (IV. Kings vi. 9). By no means. So God can reveal 
our prayers to His mother and His saints in heaven as readily 
as He can give His revelation to His saints on earth (Question- 
Box Answers, Rev. B. L. Conway, pp. 516, 517). 

That shows that the Blessed Virgin and the saints 
must become "cognizant of our prayers and cares" 
before they can answer them, just as one must become 
cognizant of "the request of a friend three thousand 
miles away" before one can "accede to the request." 
All that would be possible for them were it a one 
family affair of ten children or so, or a one parish 
affair. But when it comes to the prayers and cares of 
one hundred million or so people on earth then it is 
mathematically, utterly impossible for anyone, who "is 
only a creature," "infinitely less than God," to hear 
or have revealed to her or a saint the over forty-six 
thousand petitions that are addressed to her or a saint 



282 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

every second of time in the year. Could the writers 
of the foregoing see every second of time in the year, 
simultaneously, at one time^ over forty-six thousand 
different things in a continuously moving panoramic 
mirror, and "accede to the requests" of over forty-six 
thousand friends every second of time in the year, 
whether or not they were "three thousand miles away," 
and though there were "a thousand ways" by which 
their friends could get their requests of favors to them? 
And if God reveals "our prayers to His mother and 
His saints," would they not have to receive them at a 
rate of over forty-six thousand every second of time? 
Yes. Could Eliseus have received revelations had they 
come to him at a rate of over forty-six thousand at one 
time, simultaneously? No, decidedly not. It is the 
same with the Blessed Virgin and the saints having 
revealed to them our many prayers and cares. And 
in view, then, of what we have noted, probably that is 
the reason patients were not really cured by novenas 
to the Blessed Virgin and at the shrines of saints, and 
why the Blessed Virgin does not answer the many 
prayers, special and otherwise, that are addressed to 
her which pertain to temporal things. For instances.. 
I know of two married women who prayed specially 
to the Blessed Virgin daily for months that their 
coming unborn babes might be safely born. Yet both 
lost their babes at birth, and one mother came very 
nearly losing her life, too. Now, why was it thus 
that after they had so faithfully and with such con- 
fidence invoked the Blessed Virgin they should both 
lose their babes at birth? If it be said that it was 
not God's will that the babes should have lived, then 
what becomes of the claim of her supposed "incom- 
parable influence with her Heavenly Father" (Faith 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 283 

of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, p. 224), if 
she could not get Him to change His will? That is 
what she is supposed to do, to get or persuade God 
to change His will. And if she can not do that then 
what is the use or need of invoking her? And if it is 
already God's will to do that which we want done 
then to invoke her or a saint would simply be useless 
and needless, would it not? Yes. The prayers of 
the* two married women, then, were not answered 
because the Blessed Virgin could not hear and answer 
the over forty-six thousand petitions which are ad- 
dressed to her in so many different languages every 
second of time, measured by time on earth and not 
by "clocks in heaven," as one answered me in an argu- 
ment on the subject, saying: 

Who told you they had clocks in Heaven? 

Temporal things prayed for, as, for instances, safe 
child-births, restoration to health, etc., or even spiritual 
things, such as deliverance "from the snares of the 
devil," must be answered, if answered at all, in tem- 
poral time and they can not have the eternity of 
heaven in which they may be answered, which is 
implied in the answer in question. 

But granting that the babes had been safely born 
and had lived, would that not have been mere coin- 
cidences, being that other babes, whose mothers did 
not pray to the Blessed Virgin that they might be 
safely born and live, were safely born and live ? 

The following is also a matter that presents a 
difficulty: that of praying to different ones in the 
same prayer or prayers, such as praying the Rosary, 
Litany of the Saints, prayers in the League of the 
Sacred Heart (2d degree), where ten Hail Marys are 



284 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

said to one Our Father, etc., where one first prays to 
God, then to the Blessed Virgin, then to God again,, 
then to some saints, then to God again, etc. For when 
praying to any one we should have that one in mind 
or thought, so that first we should have God in mind 
or thought when praying to Him the part in a prayer 
that is addressed to Him, then the Blessed Virgin 
when praying the part of a prayer addressed to her. 
then God again, then this or that saint, etc. W^uld 
not that kind of praying be a sort of a seesaw, zigzag or 
flitting about way of praying? And if so, then what 
kind of praying would that be where the mind would 
be constantly flitting about and back and forth? It 
would be only an automatic, a mechanical prayer of 
the lips, would it not? And if so, then would that be 
praying with the heart or the spirit as Christ said 
(John 4 : 24) we should, or as St. Paul said we should, 
by "praying at all times in the spirit" (Eph. 6: 18) ? 

That this repetition praying, especially of the Hail 
Mary, is nothing but an automatic performance with 
the lips, and is not a praying with the heart and spirit, 
may be seen by the following: 

This rosary ("for the poor souls," to which is attached at> 
indulgence of 48,810 days) can be prayed devoutly, and without 
haste, in five or six minutes, and with what immense benefit 
for the poor souls. It should also be remembered, that these 
prayers must be said with the lips. ... It can even be prayed 
while engaged at a work that does not claim your entire atten- 
tion (Magazine, Perpetual Adoration, 1903, p. 18). 

Is that a prayer, or praying, by repeating fifty-three 
times the same words "with the lips while engaged a* 
a work that does not claim your entire attention," or 
when counting beads, which requires attention that 
engages the mind some? What is the difference 



HOW I BECAME A NON-GATHOLIC. 285 

between that kind of praying and that of the heathens 
who believed that by much speaking, or "vain repeti- 
tions," they would be heard, and of which Christ spoke 
when He said: 

And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. 
For -they think that in their much speaking they may be heard 
(Matt. 6:7)? 

Again, in praying to God, then to the Blessed 
Virgin, then to the saints, in one prayer, as in the 
Rosary, the Litany of the Saints, etc., then would not 
the Blessed Virgin and the saints have to be as omnipo- 
tent and omniscient as God Himself in order to hear 
those many prayers addressed to them, even though 
God could reveal the prayers to them? Yes. But as 
there is only one God, who "can not create a being 
equal to Himself," one Omnipotent Being, then do you 
now see again that it is utterly impossible for the 
Blessed Virgin and the saints to hear or have revealed 
to them the many petitions that are addressed to them 
by the about one hundred million "practical" Catholics 
in the world? Then think how much more impos- 
sible it would be were the whole world Catholic and 
all old enough to pray prayed to them. Then instead 
of about forty-six thousand petitions being addressed 
to them there would be about four hundred and sixty 
thousand addressed to them every second of time in 
the year. And would that not be an impossible thing 
for finite creatures, however exalted, glorified and 
''most highly honored" they may be, to do, do about 
four hundred and sixty thousand things simultaneously 
every second of time? Yes, most positively so. 

Again, what is a prayer? Is it not an aspiration, 
an outpouring of the feelings of the heart, be it to 



286 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

God or to anyone else, in other words, the mouth 
speaking the longings and the fullness of the heart? 
Yes. Well, is it measured by an exact number 
and a stereotyped set of words, and those words 
repeated fifty-three times, as the Hail Mary in the 
Rosary? When you want or ask a favor of anyone 
do you do so by saying a certain repeated number of 
times the same certain words and while you are doing 
so be counting between your fingers a certain number 
of beads in order to make sure that you said or re- 
peated them just exactly so many times, and no more 
and no less? Would you, for instance, pour out your 
feelings or love to a loved one in that way? No, to all 
those questions. 

To pray counted prayers, then, as, for instance, 
the prayers of the Rosary — the Rosary is the chain- 
like beaded article that some carry fastened to a belt 
around the waist, with a crucifix at the end, reaching 
nearly to their ankles — counted on beads, is not a 
speaking of the feelings or fullness of the heart, is it? 
No. It is then only an automatic or mechanical per- 
formance of the lips and fingers, a vain repetition of 
words, a heathen practice, as Christ noted (Matt. 6iy)y 
is it not? Yes, most manifestly it is. 

The same can be said about praying to a certain 
saint or saints certain stereotyped prayers a certain 
number of times on certain days, or a certain number 
of times a week or a month, etc., as the Church desig- 
nates. 

In view, then, of all that we have noted, is not the 
doctrine of the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and 
the saints a manifest error, etc.? And do you now 
wonder and understand why it is that notwithstanding 
the fact that the Church says: 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 287 

No infirmity is so malignant that it will not yield without 
delay to the efficacy of the Blessed Virgin's name (Annals of 
The Blessed Lady of Victory, January, 1904, p. 5) ; and 

It is the correct thing to pray to St. Joseph for money. . . . 
To St. Roche for restoration of health ... To St. Blase for 
a cure of all diseases of the throat. ... To St. Catherine for 
a husband (The Correct Thing for Catholics, Lelia H. Bugg^ 
pp. 191, 192), 

that many good Catholics, as well as clerics and nuns, 
are afflicted with incurable "malignant" infirmities, or 
diseases; have, as a rule, no more money and are na 
freer from poverty and want; are not restored to 
health any sooner or oftener; are no freer from throat 
troubles, bronchitis — as the bishop, who had to go- 
"South" on account of it — tonsilitis, diphtheria, etc., 
than non-Catholics are, who do not invoke the Blessed 
Virgin and the saints, nor visit their shrines; and why 
all Catholic women are not either married or are in 
cloisters to be God's "own loved spouses" (Advice to 
Parents, a Priest, p. 56) ? It is simply because such: 
teachings are what our analysis, with "the arms of 
the intellect," has shown them to be; namely, errors, 
etc., and there can, then, be nothing to the promises 
held out to the people by the Church by praying ta 
the Blessed Virgin or to a certain saint for a certain 
thing or things. And to judge from the fact that 
ailing clerics will go "South" or to Colorado, or make 
changes in climate for the benefit of their health, 
instead of visiting the shrines of saints, as, for 
instance, those of St. Anne — of which there is more 
than one in America — it makes it appear that they 
do not believe very strongly or do not take much 
stock in what their Church teaches, and which they 
themselves at one time, when yet in good healthy 
probably preached. 



288 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

"By their fruits you shall know them" — the Rosary, 
the Scapular, blessed medals, novenas, Shrines. 

We will now look at another feature in connection 
with the worshiping and the invocation of the Blessed 
Virgin, and which appears to be a species of idolatry. 
The following is an account of the closing services of 
what is called "May Devotions," which are devotions 
to her. Besides having during the month of May 
services in her honor in church every evening — in 
some places they are in the morning — the Church has 
usually closing services in her honor on the evening 
of the last day of the month of May. The last one I 
attended was on a Sunday evening, when there was 
quite a large attendance. There were two features in 
connection with the closing services to which I wish 
to call attention. One was the sermon, the other the 
procession in the aisles of the church. The sermon 
was an exhortation that we should become the children 
of Mary ; that we should daily recite the Rosary in 
her honor, because of the many spiritual indulgences 
which may thereby be gained; to be enrolled in her 
Scapular, etc. The procession was composed of little 
girls, who threw flowers over their shoulders as they 
marched, and of young ladies carrying lighted candles, 
who were followed by four young ladies who carried 
a decorated platform on which was a statue of the 
Blessed Virgin. As the procession moved along the 
girls repeatedly sang "Sancta Maria, ora, ora, ora 
pro nobis," which means, "Holy Mary, pray, pray, 
pray for us." Now, according to what we have seen. 
was it not an error to exhort the faithful to "daily recite 
the Rosary," "be enrolled with the Scapular," etc.? 
And was it not then also a species of idolatry to carry 
a statue of the Blessed Virgin in the procession, which 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 289 

lasted fully twenty minutes, and singing to her to pray 
for them? Yes. , 

It would be like for the colored people in the 
United States, who certainly could call Abraham 
Lincoln "Blessed Lincoln," to carry in procession in 
the aisles of their church a statue of him and singing 
and praying to him, saying : 

Blessed Lincoln, pray, pray, pray for us. 

And if they did that, then would that not be 
idolatry? For they would be doing more than simply 
honoring his memory, against which nothing could be 
said. And if so, then is it not likewise idolatry to carry 
a statue of the Blessed Virgin, who, like Lincoln, "is 
only a creature," "infinitely less than God," though by 
God "the most highly honored indeed of all created 
beings," and singing to her to pray for them? For 
that would be doing more than simply honoring her 
memory, against which nothing could be said. 

And no doubt during the procession the marchers 
imagined that she was looking down from heaven 
with pleasure upon them, as though they were the only 
ones out of one hundred million or so elsewhere in 
the world, who at the same time were also imagining 
or believing they were attracting her favorable atten- 
tion. Besides that, she may at the very same time 
have been at the bedside of some dying one and 
said: "Behold, my child, I am with you," or she 
may have been "personally conducting a soul to para- 
dise" from purgatory, or she may have been in heaven 
greeting an arrival with the words, "Welcome, my 
child, welcome at home at last," or she may have been 
listening to the reciters of the "perpetual Rosary" in 
Italy, France or Belgium, or may have been healing 

19 



290 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

some horse of blood poisoning or some other ailment, 
or may have been giving personal special protection to 
some lineman on a pole in the antipodes, who was 
wearing her ''livery," the Scapular, etc., etc., and not 
for one second saw the procession in her honor. 
When one thinks of all that, then does it not become 
very clear that to invoke her, when she "is only a 
creature," "infinitely less than God," and who can 
then be no more omnipresent to and omniscient of the 
cares and needs of one hundred million people than 
you or I, is a manifest error? For the special wor- 
shiping of the Blessed Virgin and the saints, especially 
St. Joseph, there are separate altars in Catholic 
churches. That is why most of them have at least 
three altars. The center or main altar is for the wor- 
ship of God, the one to the left of it for the special 
worship of the Blessed Virgin, and the one to the right 
for that of St. Joseph. As these two altars are some- 
times quite costly, and must be maintained, there is, then, 
a financial burden on Catholics for perpetuating and 
practicing what is nothing much but error, etc. 

Here is no doubt the way the worship of the 
Blessed Virgin originated: 

The worship of the Virgin Mary was introduced to meet, 
to gratify and to attach itself upon, the superstition which had 
long prevailed amongst the heathen in respect to Isis, Diana, 
and other goddesses, who had their millions of worshippers 
(The At-One-Ment Between God and Man, Elder Russell, p. 
69). 

Yes, it was to satisfy the superstitious minds of 
former heathens, who had become converted, that she 
was introduced as a powerful intercessor, who could 
equal, and even surpass, the supposed powers of Isis, 
Diana, etc., and that she should then be worshiped and 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 291 

invoked instead of their former heathen goddesses. 
And to further satisfy the converts, statues of the 
Blessed Virgin were made, just as there were statues 
of Isis, Diana, etc., before which they were to kneel 
and pray — not to the statues themselves, but to the 
one they represented, just as when they were yet 
heathens they had been accustomed to doing before 
heathen statues, to which they prayed directly; The 
invocation of the Saints had no doubt a somewhat 
similar origin, and in time resulted in this : 

Pope Boniface IV. first suggested the celebration of this 
festival (All Saints), when in 610 he ordered that the Pantheon, 
a pagan temple, at Rome, dedicated to all the gods, should be 
converted into a Christian church, and the relics of the saints, 
dispersed through the different Roman cemeteries, taken up 
and placed therein. He then dedicated the Church to the 
Blessed Virgin and all the martyrs (Goffine, p. 905). 

By that it may be seen how the Catholic Church 
substituted for the heathen or pagan gods the Blessed 
Virgin and the saints, who were then worshiped and 
invoked in place of the pagan gods, thus substituting 
one error for another. 

We will now look at the Scripture texts which the 
Church cites as a warrant for her doctrine of the 
worship and invocation of the Blessed Virgin. It 
rests on these texts : 

Woman, behold thy son . . . (Son), Behold thy mother 
(John 19:26, 27). 

The Church, commenting on them, says.: 

Now, what has private judgment to say to this Word? 
Traditional private judgment, in the name of Protestantism, 
discovers here only a lesson in filial piety. There is that, un- 
doubtedly; but will your private judgment and mine, taking the 
standpoint of common sense and insisting on the right of criti- 



292 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

cism, be satisfied with such an interpretation? I think not. We 
have a why or two to ask — an awkward monosyllable for the 
religious notions of some folks. 1. Why did our Savior, if He 
meant nothing more than to provide His widowed Mother with 
a home and a guardian, select that time of all others for the 
purpose? Why did He not wait till after His Resurrection, 
and then arrange the matter privately? ... 2. But, secondly, 
why was the Blessed Virgin there? What was she doing at the 
foot of the cross at all [What were "Mary of Cleophas, and 
Mary Magdalen" (John xix. 25) "doing at the foot of the cross 
at all ?"] ? A perfectly fair question, and by no means flippant. 
... 3. But, thirdly, why was St. John there? Had not all 
the apostles forsaken their Master and fled on seeing Him de- 
Hver Himself up to His enemies? . . . Must we not admit 
that he was there by a special providence — ^that our Savior took 
care to have him there [No more so than that Mary of Cleo- 
phas, and Mary Magdalen were there] ? (A Short Cut to The 
True Church, Rev. Edmund Hill, pp. 133, 134, 137). 

Those whys can best be answered by making an 
analogy and applying it to a mother of to-day, who, if 
not unable from prostration, and it were believed she 
could endure the ordeal of seeing her son placed on a 
gallows and executed, would be present at the execu- 
tion of her son. It would be because of obedience to 
the call of her instinctive mother-love for her son, 
would it not? Yes ; for no mother ever, or rarely ever, 
forsakes her own child at his most trying period, his 
execution, no matter how ungrateful, cruel or abusive 
he may have been towards her, or how degraded and 
great a criminal, or ^'pestilent fellow and blasphemer," 
as an Orthodox church at the time of Christ regarded 
Him to be, he may have become, she will cling to 
him till he is placed on the gallows and is executed. 
That, then, is why the Blessed Virgin was "at the 
cross at all." And if the mother was present at the 
execution of her son^ and a true friend of her son, as 



HOW I BECAIviE A NON-CATHOLIC. 293 

St. John was to Christ, was the only friend who did 
not desert the son even in his most trying moments, 
and he was also present, and the son saw the constancy 
of his friend, then would that not be the most pro- 
pitious time, just before being executed and death 
overcame him, to commend his widowed mother to 
the care of such a friend, and his friend to the broken- 
hearted mother, to solace and support her in her most 
trying moments? Yes. Well, it was the same with 
Christ on the cross. 

That, then, is why Christ did not "wait till after 
His resurrection, and then arrange the matter pri- 
vately." The Blessed Virgin needed then and there 
the solace and support of some one. Is that, then, not 
reasonable and plausible why Christ did not wait till 
after His Resurrection to commend His mother to the 
care of St. John, and him to her, to bind or seal a true 
friendship and "filial piety?" Yes; and that that was 
all that was meant by it is proven by the fact that — 

From that hour, the disciple took her to his own (John 
19:27), 

or, as the Catholic Bible says, in an annotation to 
John 19 : 27 : 

Ver. 27. The disciple took her to his own home, or into his 
own care, not for his mother, by the Greek expression. 

Yes, that is all it meant; he was to take her into 
his own care, not for his spiritual mother, nor for us 
as our mother. It was simply a frlial arrangement 
between the two^ and it had no further significance, 
and it could not have according to what we have seen 
with "the arms of the intellect." 

Again, if St. John was at the cross "by a special 
providence — that our Savior took care to have him 



294 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

there/' in order to deliver to him the doctrine of the 
protection, comfort and invocation of the Blessed 
Virgin, as taught by the Catholic Church, then why 
did Christ not have St. Peter there instead, if he was 
to be the Supreme Pastor of Christ's Church, and was 
to "feed the sheep and the lambs?" It seems that that 
why is an "awkward monosyllable for the" Catholic 
Church, if St. Peter was to be the head of Christ's 
Church, and was to "feed," teach, its ministers and 
members, as the Church claims. For as it is, it is a 
case of the "sheep," St. John, "feeding" the shepherd, 
St. Peter, as otherwise St. Peter would not have known 
of the Catholic doctrine of the protection, comfort and 
intercession of the Blessed Virgin, which he was to 
"feed" to the sheep and the lambs. Now, why was not 
St. Peter at the cross "by a special providence," instead 
of St. John, to receive at first hand the doctrine in 
question, if he was to be the chief pastor and was to 
"feed," teach, the sheep and the lambs? But the fact 
that St. John was at the cross, and St. Peter was not, 
proves that St. Peter was not to be the Supreme Pastor 
of Christ's Church, and that St. John was the truer 
friend of the two of Christ, and that he was not at 
the cross "by a special providence," in order to receive 
the supposed doctrine in question. 

Again, if by the words "behold thy mother," which 
were addressed only to St. John as in person sup- 
posedly to us, were intended by Christ for all in all 
times, then why are not these words, Drink ye all of 
it (Matt. 26:27), intended for all and in all times, 
and all then receive Communion in both kinds? The 
reason the Church limits Communion in both kinds 
only to clerics, is the following: 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 295 

No precept was given by our Saviour, at the institution of 
it, for all the laity to partake in both kinds; which is the point 
to be proved by protestants. They reply, that the words of our 
Saviour, Drink ye all of it (Matt. xxvi. 27), contain a positive 
command for all to drink of the cup. We answer, That the 
twelve apostles were all that were present with our Saviour at 
the last supper, as St. Matthew, Mark and Luke witness. The 
most, therefore, that can be proved from these words of our 
Saviour, Drink ye all of it, is that He gave command to the 
twelve apostles [And St. Paul to the laity — 1 Cor. xi. 26], and 
to priests, to partake in both kinds [As St. Paul told the Cor- 
inthians], as often as they consecrate this sacrament . . . But 
no such command is here given to the laity (The Protestants* 
Objections to Points of Catholic Doctrine, p. 114). 

The Church also teaches the following: 

All commands given by Christ in terms personal to the 
Apostles, descend and are obligatory upon us, unless they are 
limited by express words [Where are those "express words" 
in Matt, xxvi.?], or by the temporary nature of the command 
itself (The Path Which Led a Protestant Lawyer, etc., Burnett, 
Rev. Jas. Sullivan, S. J., Ed., p. 61). 

If, then, the words, "Drink ye all of it," were in- 
tended only for the Apostles and their supposed suc- 
cessors, the clerics, although it appears St. Paul did 
not understand them in that way, nor were they 
''limited by express words" to the Apostles, then by 
the same rule of interpretation the words, "Woman, 
behold thy son; (Son), behold thy mother," which 
"were addressed not to the people at large, but only 
to the" (The Faith of Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons. 
p. 344) Apostle St. John, and appears to have been 
only of a "temporary nature," were also limited to 
him. Here is even the proof of that: 

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, AND 
his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, AND Mary Magdalen 
(John 19:25). 



296 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

Now, if Christ had intended for His mother to be 
a mother to all of us in the sense the Church teaches^ 
then should He not also have said to her : 

Woman, behold thy daughters? 

And then to **Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen/' 
whom He also loved as He did St. John: 

Daughters, behold thy mother? 

Yes, if there is to be any consistent rule of inter- 
pretation and process of reasoning. 

But the fact that He did not do so when they were 
present at the time He spoke to St. John the words, 
"Behold thy mother," proves irrefutably and conclu- 
sively that those words were limited to the Blessed 
Virgin and St. John. That is "the most, therefore, 
that can be proved from these words of our Savior," 
"Woman, behold thy son," (Son), "behold thy mother," 
they were limited to her and him, were only of a 
"temporary nature," and had no further significance 
than a "filial arrangement" between them, where the 
two were to be united in a bond of friendship and he 
was to console her and look after her temporal welfare. 
And that fact is further proven if the following is true 5 

Tradition says that the apostles were re-united around the 
dying bed of the Blessed Virgin, singing the praises of her who 
was soon to become their glorious queen (Catholic Ceremonies 
and Explanation of The Ecclesiastical Year, Rev. Abbe Durand, 
p. 157.) 

If the foregoing is true, and granting that it is, 
and we should invoke and pray to her as the Church 
teaches, then should not the Apostles, or at least 
St. John, who wrote many years after her death, have 
mentioned that fact? But the fact that they did not 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 297 

do so shows that they did not believe in invoking her 
or the saints, and for that reason they did not tell or 
exhort the faithful to pray to the Blessed Virgin and 
the saints, as the Church does now, even though the 
"patriarchs and prophets," the Blessed Virgin and 
some saints had passed on to glory before the Apostles 
did. For St. Paul, in his epistles, to "repeatedly ask 
for himself the prayers of his disciples" (The Faith of 
Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, pp. 187, 188). 
was quite a different proposition from that of one 
hundred million or so praying to any one in heaven^ 
who "is only a creature," "infinitely less than God," 
one asking for this, another for that, etc. One can 
ask of or speak to thousands on earth at the same 
time, and all understand him, but if thousands should 
speak to one who "is only a creature," whether or 
not "the most highly honored" by God or by the 
people, at one and the same time, as we saw over 
forty-six thousand do every second of time in the year 
to the Blessed Virgin, in many different languages^ 
one could not make anything out of it but babel and 
confusion. Is that not so? Yes. The doctrine of the 
Invocation of the Blessed Virgin, and of the saints, 
then, is an error, is it not? 

The Church has also made the Blessed Virgin quite 
a competitor for the prerogatives of God, and is about 
to take His place, according to this: 

The Blessed Virgin said the following consoling words to 
St. Bridget: "No matter how great a sinner one may be, if he 
returns to me I am always ready to receive him, providing he 
comes with a sincere heart and true repentance. I do not look 
upon the greatness of his guilt but upon his disposition. I am 
called the 'Mother of Mercy,' and I am so indeed" (Tabernacle 
and Purgatory, May, 1905, p. IS). 



298 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

No need of the God, then, whom Christ declared 
unto us, is there, if sinners are to return to the Blessed 
Virgin, "with a sincere heart and true repentance?' 
No. She has indeed been made by the Church quite a 
competitor for the prerogatives of God, in having us — 

Fly to the arms of Mary when the devil comes too near us; 
a comfort in all our afflictions and tribulations; the most merci- 
ful; the mirror of justice; the seat of wisdom; the health of 
the sick [Excepting those clerics who go "South," to Colorado, 
etc., for their health] ; the comfortress of the afflicted ; Virgin 
most powerful; the Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our 
life, our sweetness and our hope. To Thee do we cry, poor 
banished children of Eve. To Thee do we send up our sighs, 
mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most 
gracious Advocate [But St. John said Christ was our Advocate 
(1 John ii. 1), who must then be our "most gracious Advo- 
cate"], Thine eyes of mercy towards us. And after this, our 
exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of Thy womb, Jesus. Re- 
member, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known 
that any one who fled to Thy protection, implored Thy help, 
and sought Thy intercession was left unaided [Excepting the 
two mothers who lost their babes at birth, etc.]. Inspired with 
this confidence [As the two mothers were], I fly unto Thee, O 
Virgin of virgins, my mother. To thee I come [With over 
46,000 others at the same time] ; before Thee I stand, sinful and 
sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my 
petitions but in Thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen (Any 
Catholic Prayer Book). 

But how is she to hear and answer one when to 
do so she would have to do over ninety-two thousand 
things at one and the same time every second of time 
from one end of the year to the other? For to 
answer over forty-six thousand petitions every second 
of time in the year requires about as much time as it 
does to hear them, even though she did not dehberate 
over the petitions whether she should answer them or 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 299 

not, and she answered them at once after the prayers 
had ended. 

Does not the erroneousness of the doctrine of the 
Invocation of the Blessed Virgin become more and 
more apparent the deeper one looks into it, "digs a 
little deeper?" And is not the discovery that it is an 
error, etc., in itself a sufficient reason to make a 
Catholic, who wants to be consistent and does not 
want to become a hypocrite by professing belief in 
that to which he can no longer give "an internal assent 
of the intellect," a non-Catholic? Yes. Well, that is 
what it made me. And such being the case, then do 
you blame me for openly becoming a non-Catholic and 
leaving the Church ? 

I could say much more on the subject dealt with 
in this chapter, but it seems enough has been said to 
show anyone who does not absolutely reject his in- 
tellect and "throw it under the feet" of blind and 
unthinking faith, that the doctrine in question is mani- 
festly and unquestionably an error and can not stand 
the test of an analysis with the "arms of the intellect." 
And to say more than that, then, is simply superfluous. 



CONCLUSION. 

In conclusion I want to say, and especially to the 
Catholics who may chance to read this work, and wha 
may as a result have the first doubt to enter their 
minds as to the truth of all the teachings of thf 
Church, that the conviction that the doctrines of the 
Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, with its 
concomitants, and the Invocation of the Blessed 
Virgin are errors, etc., did not come to me without 
much mental perturbation and much prayer. For I 
had been taught from childhood on up, as all "bom and 
bred" Catholics are, that the "Holy Roman Catholic 
and Apostolic Church" was the church, and the only 
church, which Christ established on earth. That she 
was infallible and guided by the Holy Spirit, who was 
left only to her teaching body (Annotation to II. Pet. 
1:20). That she could not, therefore, possibly err or 
teach an error. That to doubt or question the truth 
of any of her teachings or to forsake her faith would 
be a "mortal sin," and that — 

Every one is obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to 
become a member of the Catholic Church, to believe her doc- 
trine, to use her means of grace, and to submit to her authority 
(Deharbe's Catechism No. 1, p. 145). 

With that thought, then, on my mind many 
and many a time when I would be reading Catholic 
writings, and thoughts would come to me that were 
at variance with what I was reading, or which seemed 
to me to be absurd and self-contradictory, or seemed 
300 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC 301 

tinscriptural, I would have mental perturbations and 
would earnestly and sincerely pray by saying: 

O God, reveal to me the truth! 

Yes, I wanted to know the truth. I did not ask to 
know whether or not the Catholic Church was the 
^'true Church," or whether or not her "credentials," 
as being the only Church of Christ, were genuine, or 
whether or not she was the "first and oldest" church, 
or whether or not she was the "one and only Apostolic 
Church," but I wanted to know the truth. Besides 
that, from the very depths of my mind and heart the 
following prayer came forth spontaneously, and I 
uttered it many and many a time with tears streaming 
from my eyes and wetting the pillow upon which my 
head was lying while I was bedfast, enduring great 
physical pain and suffering, before I really became a 
non-Catholic and left the Church: 

Dear Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ I ask 
that Thou wouldst give me wisdom and enlighten my under- 
standing that I may understand and know Thee, Jesus Christ 
(John xvii. 3), and my true being! Reveal to me the truth and 
lead me into the path in which I may please Thee, and whither- 
soever Thou wouldst lead me thither give me the strength and 
courage to go. O God, should the path that I am in now, 
which is leading me to believe differently from what I once 
believed, end in error and darkness, then I ask in the name of 
Jesus Christ that Thou wouldst let my earthly existence come 
to an end before I should do anything that would scandalize 
any so as to endanger their faith in Thee or their salvation. 
Dear Father, should the path, however, lead me to the light and 
the truth, then I ask that Thou wouldst quicken my understand- 
ing and increase my wisdom so that I may attain to the 
knowledge of the truth. 

Now, if you believe God hears and answers many 
a time uttered sincere prayers to know the truth and 



302 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

have it revealed to one, and He did not "let my earthly 
existence come to an end/' for I was bedridden at the 
time I began to utter that prayer, or He did not let 
me become paralyzed so that I could not have gotten 
off alive from my bed — for my spine is quite badly 
injured, having gotten it injured in a street car mis- 
hap — but instead have been enabled to get off my bed, 
so that I can write, and write this work, then do you 
believe that instead of revealing the truth to me He 
let me fall into error, or sent me error instead of the 
truth, and let me get into the power of the devil, as 
some claim? And if I am now really in error and in 
the power of the devil, then is that the way God 
answers many times uttered sincere prayers to know 
the truth and have it revealed to one through the 
understanding? Does God give one a stone (error) 
when one asks for bread (truth) ? And if He did, but 
which I do not believe He does, then would that 
not be contrary to what a human father would do 
(Matt. 7:9)? And are we not exhorted or bidden to 
ask, as may be seen by the following ? 

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; 
knock, and it shall be opened to you (Matt. vii. 7). 

The Lord will give thee in all things (spiritual) understand- 
ing (2 Tim. ii. 7). 

That the God of our Lord- Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, 
may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation, in 
the knowledge of him (Eph. i. 17). 

But if any of you want wisdom, let him ask of God, who 
giveth to all men abundantly, and upbraideth not; and it shall 
be given him (Jas. i. 5). 

Did I not, in the prayers given in this work, 
besides in others not given, ask for wisdom and under- 
standing, and ask, seek and knock for the truth? If 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 303 

so, then why or how can I now be in error and in the 
power of the devil, because I underwent a change of 
convictions with regard to the doctrines of the Real 
Presence of Christ-God in the Eucharist, which, as we 
saw, is the Church's "most important doctrine," the 
"keystone of her worship," etc., and of the Invocation 
of the Blessed Virgin? Or does God, when we 
earnestly and sincerely pray to Him to reveal the 
truth to us, instead let the devil answer our prayers, 
by letting him deceive and lead us into error? I do 
not believe He does. But whetlier He did or not, or 
whether or not I did wrong by openly becoming a 
non-Catholic and leaving the Church, that I will leave 
to the reader to say. Of course, the Church will say, 
as a Catholic writer has already said of me, that I was 
led into error by the devil. For when yet a Catholic 
I could not and had not the right to ask God to reveal 
the truth to me, or to question the truth of any of 
the teachings of the Church, 

Because God had already revealed it to me, and it is not 
a part of the divine plan to give private revelations to all who 
demand them . . . Our Lord laid on all men as a condition 
to salvation, docility to the teachings of the Church [The 
Catholic, of course]^ when he said (here quotes Mark xvi. 15, 
1'6), . . Private revelations, then, . . . are things which 
God has distinctly told us He will not grant ... A Catholic 
may not even speculatively question the truth of his religion. 

(No doubt the Jewish Church would have said the 
same to one who should have prayed to have the truth 
about Christ revealed to him, and who should have 
questioned her interpretations and teachings, that the 
"promised Son of David was to be a great temporal 
prince.") 

Is the foregoing quotation, excepting the last 



304 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

sentence, true in view of the texts just quoted, and 
in view of the following? 

Let us ■ therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded; 
and if in anything you be otherwise minded, this also God will 
reveal to you (Phil. iii. 15) ? 

God, then, does "give private revelations" to those 
who ask Him to reveal the truth to them, "if in 
anything they be otherwise minded" than that which 
the Church teaches, does He not? Yes. And nowhere 
does it say in Holy Writ that "God has distinctly told 
us He will not grant private revelations" to those who 
ask to know the truth and have it revealed to them. 
In fact, that claim is flatly contradicted by the texts 
just quoted, is it not? 

And did not some saints in the Middle Ages have 
^'private revelations," when they claimed the Lord 
personally appeared to them and held personal con- 
versations with them on religious subjects, which is a 
good deal more than I claim for myself? For I had no 
visions or apparitions, but the convictions or truth came 
to me through the understanding, and as St. Paul said, 
as we saw, spiritual truths and convictions should. 

When thoughts or convictions came to me that 
made me "otherwise minded" than that which the 
Church teaches concerning the Real Presence oi' 
Christ-God in the Eucharist, and the Invocation of the 
Blessed Virgin, I asked God to reveal the truth to me, 
instead of saying, "My God, I believe !" That is what 
a priest told me to say when doubts came to my mind 
as to the truth of some of the teachings of the Church, 
and began to "speculatively question the truth" of 
some of her teachings. While I was bedfast a priest 
came to have a talk with me on some of the teachings 
of the Church, and when I expressed a doubt as to 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 305 

the truth of some of them he told me to say, "My God, 
I believe!" as though God could not discern the 
thoughts and secrets in the mind and heart of man and 
could be lied to without His knowing it. For if one 
doubts a thing one can not at the same time truthfully 
say, "My God, I believe!" without telling God a lie. 
Especially would such have been the case when I 
could no longer give "an internal assent of the in- 
tellect" to some of the teachings of the Church, which, 
as we saw, is required of a Catholic. 

And, surely, I could no longer give "an internal 
assent of the intellect," for instance, to the teachings 
of the late Pope Leo. XIII., that "Christ is not put 
on except by the frequentation of the Eucharistic 
table," or that the Spirit is received "by the flesh" — 
mouth-eating Communion, after the intellect — under- 
standing — plainly told me that Christ is put on through 
a mental act of the mind and will, "by the hearing of 
faith" — assimilating words of truth. And I do not 
believe God requires us to believe by faith that which 
the intellect — understanding — can not assent to, and 
which the intellect tells us to the contrary. It is the 
same with regard to the invocation of the Blessed 
Virgin, for the "arms of the intellect," mathematical 
proofs, tell the understanding that it is utterly impos- 
sible for one who "is only a creature," "infinitely less 
than God," to give special personal, omnipresent help 
and protection to about one hundred million "prac- 
tical" Catholics in different places in the world, as the 
Church would have us believe, and at the very same 
time, simultaneously, hear over forty-six thousand 
petitions, and that every second of time in the year. 

Well, when I could, then, no longer give an "in- 
ternal assent of the intellect" to all of the teachings 

20 



306 HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 

of the Ghurch I thought it best to become openly a 
non-Catholic and leave her fold, which I did when I 
thought I could expediently do so. 

As to which Protestant Church one should identify 
oneself with, should the reader of this work be a 
Catholic, and the reading of it should lead him or her 
out of the Roman Catholic Church, I will not desig- 
nate any certain one but will leave that to the reader's 
own choosing. But any church that takes the Bible 
and the life of Christ, rather than a piece of blessed 
bread, for its "bread of life," and which does not pray 
to or invoke one who "is only a creature," "infinitely 
less than God," comes nearer, very much nearer, 
having the truth than a church that takes a piece of 
blessed bread, the Eucharist, for its "bread of life," 
and which invokes and prays to the Blessed Virgin 
and the saints, finite glorified beings. 

In one of the quotations we saw that "every one 
is obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to become 
a member of the Catholic Church," etc. In one sense 
of the word that would mean that we must accept and 
believe on the "authority" of the Catholic Church tha^ 
which the "arms of the intellect" might contradict and 
prevent us from accepting and believing. Will God 
then condemn to "eternal damnation," hell, those who 
can not believe on Catholic Church authority that which 
the "arms of the intellect" contradicts and prevents them 
from believing and from giving to it "an internal assent 
of the intellect?" Answer for yourself; but I myself do 
not believe He will. 

One thing more and then I will end this work. 
There is at the present time a great deal of talk and 
much writing about Christian unity or the reunion of 



HOW I BECAME A NON-CATHOLIC. 307 

Christendom. Here is what the Catholic Church has 
to say on the subject: 

The Catholic Church will never come to terms with other 
religious opinions and parties, as she cannot surrender the truth 
(Spiritual Pepper and Salt, Right Rev. Wm. Stang, D. D., p. 
121). 

That she will make no concession nor compromise, that she 
will not give up one iota of dogma for the sake of peace and 
reunion . . . H the Church be divine, this must be her aspect, 
such must be the tone in which she speaks. To submit is to 
obey, not man, but God (The Invitation Heeded: Reasons for 
a Return to Catholic Unity, Rev. James Kent Stone, p. 117). 

But by what we have seen, where we saw that 
virtually the two leading doctrines of the Church, not 
taking into consideration other "doctrines peculiar to 
herself," are erroneous, self -contradictory and unscrip- 
tural, then does there seem to be any probability of a 
"return to Catholic unity," a reunion of Christendom 
on the basis of Papal Supremacy, unless the people 
absolutely reject and "throw under the feet of faith" 
the very faculties, the "arms of the intellect," with 
which God has endowed us as well as with faith, 
which the Church says she will one day use in her 
combat with Infidelity? No. The talk and hope, 
then, of Christian unity, which is the prayer of both 
Catholics and Protestants, is entirely out of the ques- 
tion, is it not, unless the Catholic Church does give 
up not only "one iota of dogma," but a number of 
them that are "peculiar to herself?" Answer for 
yourself. 

THE END. 



APPENDIX. 

Since the foregoing was written some matter has 
come to hand about which I want to say a few words. 
Among other things is that of Communion of children, 
the age at which they may now receive it. In the 
foregoing the statement was made that children in 
this country were not permitted to make their First 
Communion till they had reached the full age of twelve 
years. But that is now to be changed, for the "Sacred 
Congregation" has spoken since the foregoing was 
written. Here it is, in part: 

With the approval of our illustrious Pontiff, Pope Pius X., 
D.Cardinal Ferrata, prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the 
Sacraments, has given to the Catholic world the following an- 
nouncement as to the age at which children are allowed to 
receive their first holy communion: 

The pages of the Gospels plainly testify to the special love 
which Christ showed whilst on earth to the little ones. It was 
His delight to be in their midst. He laid hands upon them, 
He embraced and blessed them. He was indignant when they 
repulsed His disciples and reprimanded the latter in the follow- 
ing words: (Quotes Mark x, 13, 16 and Matt, xviii, 3-5). Bear- 
ing this in mind, the Catholic Church from the beginning took 
care to bring Christ to the little ones through Eucharistic Com- 
munion, which was given even to the sucklings. This, as was 
prescribed in almost all the ancient rituals till the 13th century, 
was done at baptism. . . . But to avoid all danger, lest the 
children should spit out the consecrated host, the custom ob- 
tained from the beginning of giving the Holy Eucharist under 
the species of wine alone. The infants did not, however, re- 
ceive Holy Communion only at baptism, but they frequently 
afterwards partook of the divine repast. For it was the custom 
308 



APPENDIX. 309 

in many churches to give communion to the children immedi- 
ately after the clergy, in others to dispense to them the small 
fragments left over after the communion of the adults. Later 
this custom became obsolete in the Latin Church [Will the 
Baptism of infants also become "obsolete" some dayf], neither 
were children permitted to approach the holy table before the 
dawn of the use of reason and before having some knowledge 
of the august sacrament [Did tlie Spirit of Truth guide the 
Church then, and will the same apply to the reception of Baptism 
one dayf] . . . According to the various customs of places 
and opinions of men [/ thought the Spirit of Truth, through 
the Pope, guided the Church?], the age of ten years was fixed 
for receiving first holy communion in some places, in others 
fourteen years and even more were required [The Church then 
was not universal in teaching and practice], in the meanwhile 
forbidding all those children under the required age from re- 
ceiving holy communion . . . But the worst of all is that, in 
some places children not yet admitted to First Holy Communion 
are not permitted to receive the Sacred Viaticum, even when in 
danger of death, and thus, dying and being buried as infants, 
they are not helped by the prayers of the Church [Do infant 
children go t'o Pufgatory, that they should be prayed for after 
their death?] . . . Having seriously considered all these 
things, the Sacred Congregation on the discipline of Sacra- 
ments, at a general meeting held on the 15th of July, 1910, in 
order that the above mentioned abuses might be removed and 
the children of tender years become attached to Jesus, live His 
life, and obtain assistance against the dangers of corruption, 
has judged it opportune to lay down the following form for 
admitting children to first holy communion to be observed every- 
where [why not include baptismr?] : 

1. The age of discretion required both- for confession and 
communion is the time when the child begins to reason, that 
is about the seventh year, more or less. From this time on the 
obligation of satisfying the precept [issued by the Latera/n Counr- 
cil, in 1215^ of both confession and communion begins. 

2. Both for first confession and first communion a complete 
and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary. 
The child will, however, be obliged to gradually learn the 
whole catechism according to its abiHty. 



310 APPENDIX. 

3. The knowledge of Christian doctrine required in children 
in order to be properly prepared for first holy communion [were 
they not "properly prepared," then, in the primitive days of the 
Church?"] is that they understand according to their capacity 
those mysteries of Faith which are necessary as a means of 
salvation [as hearing the voice of the Spirit— John Hi. 8; and of 
believing in the Gospel— Mark xvi. 15, 16, for the reception of 
Baptism f], that they be able to distinguish the Eucharist 
from common and material bread. . . . These resolutions of 
the Eminent Fathers, the Cardinals of this Sacred Congregation, 
have been approved by Our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius X 
[Christ said to call "none your father upon earth" — Matt, xxiii. 9, 
which no doubt meant a spiritual father. Yet the Church not 
only calls the Pope "Holy Father," but here he is called ''Our 
Most Holy Lord". Is that a fulfillment of the latter part of 
//. Thess. a. 4f] in an audience given on the seventh day of the 
current month, and he has commanded the present decree to be 
edited and promulgated. . . . Given in Rome at the residence 
of the same Sacred Congregation on the eighth day of August, 
1910. 

D. Card. FERRATA, Prefect. Ph. Giustini, Secretary (Cath- 
olic Register, September 8, 1910). 

By the foregoing it may be seen that up to the 
thirteenth century infant "sucklings" were given Com- 
munion not only once, and that at baptism, "but they 
frequently afterwards partook of the divine repast." 
At that time infant children were apparently not 
required "to be properly prepared" for the reception 
of Communion, by having a knoweldge of Christian 
doctrine sufficient to enable them "to distinguish the 
Eucharist from common and material bread," discern 
the body of the Lord. And no doubt it was at that 
time believed, too, that Communion was as indispen- 
sable to their salvation as the Church believed baptism 
was, otherwise she would not have administered such 
an "august sacrament" to them. But now all that is 
changed, and it is now no longer believed that Com- 



APPENDIX. 311 

munion is indispensable to the salvation of infant 
children, otherwise she would administer it to them 
as she does baptism. 

The new decree says that children are now to 
receive their First Communion when they arrive at 
the age when they begin "to reason, that is about the 
seventh year, more or less." As for some time of the 
past children were not permitted to receive Com- 
munion in this country before they reached the full 
age of twelve years, no matter how bright and in- 
telligent they were, then was the Church guided by 
the Spirit of truth in both cases, as well as when she 
administered Communion to "sucklings?" If so, when 
has the Spirit of truth changed? For the changes 
affected doctrinal teachings and practices, not merely 
discipline. Is it not plainly to be seen, then, that the 
Church is not guided by the Spirit of truth, as she 
asserts, but that she is guided by "Sacred Congrega- 
tions" of fallible men? Yes. That is why she is 
changeable. 

The changes with regard to the administering of 
Communion to infants and children, in the course of 
time, also shows that in the course of time the venera- 
tion for the Eucharist increased. That is why "in the 
primitive days of the Church" Communion was given 
to "sucklings" without requiring them to have "some 
knowledge of the august sacrament," and why the 
Eucharist was given into the hands of laymen with 
which to communicate themselves, as we saw. 

But when in the course of time "the sacerdotal 
theory advanced," the veneration for the Eucharist 
increased and it was elevated into "a God," made 
"out of a piece of bread, by the words of a priest," as 
we saw, then Communion was no longer given to any 



312 APPENDIX. 

under the age of reason, and without being "properly 
prepared." And the Host was no longer given into 
the hands of laymen with which to communicate them- 
selves, it then becoming, as we saw, a "mortal sin" 
even to touch "the sacred vessels immediately con- 
cerned with the Holy Eucharist," unless one was "at 
the least in deacon's orders," let alone to touch the 
Eucharist with the hands — it being all right to touch 
it with the mouth and stomach. What a changeable 
church ! Yet she claims she never changes with regard 
to essentials. Who but the woefully blind can not 
see that she is changeable and must, therefore, be 
mainly a human organization or institution, guided by 
"Sacred Congregations" of fallible Cardinals and Popes. 
And the Church changes in some things about every 
time a new "Sacred Congregation" comes into power 
and wants to make a show of its "authority," just 
like about every new Pope, "Holy Father," "Most 
Holy Lord," makes a show of his "authority" by grant- 
ing one or more new indulgences. And every new 
indulgence is a new spiritual gift, making the means 
of salvation more and more numerous the older the 
Church becomes and the more new Popes she has, 
thus making the Church more or less changeable fron^ 
time to time. 

In the announcement we saw also that Communion 
was given to infant children not only at baptism, but 
"frequently afterwards." Why was that done? Did 
they "chase Christ away by sin" between each Com- 
munion, when as yet they had not reached the age of 
reason and accountability and were, therefore, in- 
capable of committing sin and chasing Christ away? 
Or did they really "consume" Him to nothingness, as 
they did the natural food of which they partook daily 



APPENDIX. 315 

for the nourishment of their bodies ? Or did He leave 
them, ''whole and entire," when the "species ceased 
because of digestion?" If so, why should His pres- 
ence be afifected by digestion? Think of that question 
again. And if he left them, then how did He abide 
with them, or how abide with anyone else if His 
presence ceases when the "species cease because of 
digestion?" And if Christ leaves "on the consump- 
tion of the host," then what becomes of Him or where 
does He go? For, as we saw, transubstantiation con- 
verts, changes, not displaces, the "whole substance of 
bread and wine" into the substance of the flesh and 
blood, or body, of Christ, thus making a new substance 
or being with a beginning, beginning where the sub- 
stance of bread and wine end, just as a new substance 
or being is made when the "whole substance" of an 
egg is converted, changed into the substance of a 
chicken. Even to say that — 

Our Lord is present on our altars [or in Eucharists] by way 
of transubstantiation (The Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist 
and Human Reason, Rev. Joseph Chiaudano, S. J., p. 18), 

implies new substance that forms either a new being 
or adds to the size or quantity of a being already 
existing. The writer just quoted says further: 

This same doctrine (transubstantiation) explains why Jesus 
Christ, although existing in this Sacrament with His body, as 
He is in Heaven, that is to say, perfect, is, nevertheless, invisible 
to the corporeal eye {Ibid., p. 18). 

Now, what becomes of this newly-made substance 
of Christ, or His "perfect" body, if it is "imperish- 
able and incorruptible," that is, not capable of being 
digested and assimilated, if it is not actually "con- 
sumed" in Communion, and its presence ceases in the 



314 APPENDIX. 

communicant when the "species have ceased because 
of digestion ?" Think of that again ! Dare to have a 
"curious scrutiny" to think of that again ! 

Or is there by transubstantiation really no new 
substance made or brought into existence, and which 
has not already existed somewhere, so that the 
Eucharist is after all only as a mirror that reflects 
the sun, it only reflecting Christ? If so, then is not 
the word transubstantiation a misnomer, and should 
the process not be called Displacement, or something 
else, instead of transubstantiation ? 

Again, how has one "eat the flesh of the Son of 
Man," or how is one's soul nourished by it, if one in 
Communion does not really and actually "consume" 
it, assimilate it^ so that it flows in the veins of a 
communicant as "the blood of God?" Or is the recep- 
tion of Communion only a "mystical" eating, a sham 
eating, like the death of Christ is in Mass, as we saw, 
a pretense of eating, but not a real eating after all, a 
case of "now you do, and now you do not," "eat the 
flesh of the Son of Man?" 

Again, where did Christ or the Apostles teach that 
the presence of Christ ceases in one when the "species 
have ceased because of digestion ?" Rather, did Christ 
not say that "he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh 
my blood, abideth in me, and I in him" (John 6 : 57) ? 
Yes. But can that be called an abiding of Christ if 
He withdraws His whole and entire presence "on the 
consumption of the host," which is about "fifteen 
minutes after receiving" it, and one receives the host 
only weekly, monthly, quarterly or yearly, or even 
daily? Hardly. And did not St. Paul say that Christ, 
when once really received, remains till we become 
"reprobates" (II Cor. 13:3), that is, sinners? St. John 



APPENDIX. 315 

said practically the same (i John 3:24; 4:12, 16). 
The Church, then, does not agree in her teachings 
with those of .Christ and the Apostles, does she ? No. 
Her teaching on the subject, then, is only self-contra-« 
dictory theological "verbiage," is it not? 

Again, if Christ is really not "consumed" when 
received in Communion, and He is then only received 
that He might dwell in one's heart for the time during 
which the Eucharist remains undestroyed "by the 
natural heat" of the communicant's stomach, then why 
not carry the Eucharist over one's heart, in a locket 
tied to a string around the neck, and under one's 
clothing, if it requires a Eucharist as a magnet to 
draw and hold Christ within a foot or so of a certain 
place? For that is about the distance of the heart 
from the stomach into which the Eucharist goes when 
received in Communion. In that way Christ would 
remain in one's heart till He was "chased away by 
sin," or till the Eucharist became "stale." It is strange 
that His presence should also be affected by the 
"staleness" of the "species." 

But it may be said that Christ declared He must 
be eat with the mouth. But what is the need ol 
eating Him if His body is not assimilated as other 
things are that are eat with the mouth, if He is 
received into the mouth only that He might go from 
it through the stomach into one's heart for "about 
fifteen minutes?" For no thrill is felt anyway during 
those fifteen minutes, nor any time after that space 
of time, so that He might as well be carried in a 
locket as just stated, instead of being received into the 
stomach. And does He keep an eye on the Eucharist 
in the stomach because He is supposed to leave one 
when it has "ceased because of digestion?" Yet that 



316 APPENDIX, 

is what He would have to do were His presence 
limited by the duration of the host. How absurd that 
would be. 

And is that the way to reach the heart spiritually 
through the mouth and stomach? And do things 
leave the heart through the stomach and mouth? Are 
evil thoughts of the heart driven out through the 
stomach and rriouth? No. Must not, then, the blind- 
ness be certainly very great that can not see the 
erroneous and unscriptural teachings of the Church 
with regard to the doctrine of the Real Presence, her 
interpretation of John 6th, and of how she would have 
us "put on Christ," etc., which is, as we saw, "by the 
frequentation of the Eucharistic table?" And may it 
not be seen, then, that the way to "put on Christ," 
His "spirit and life," scripturally expressed by to "eat 
the flesh of the Son of Man," etc., is "by the hearing 
of faith," a mental operation of the mind and will, 
and not by a mouth-eating act? In that way He 
would also continuously "abide" with one till "chased 
away by sin," till one became a "reprobate," and not 
"abide" only for "about fifteen minutes" once a week, 
or month, or whenever one went to Communion. Is 
that not so? And if so, then would it not be much 
better for the Church to teach the people that, because 
it is plain and comprehensible, than to teach them that 
"Christ is not put on except by the frequentation of 
the Eucharistic table," as we saw the late Pope 
Leo XIII. taught, and that His presence ceases when 
the "species have ceased because of digestion," which 
is about "fifteen minutes after receiving" Communion? 
And teach them that Communion is only a function at 
which one partakes of simply blessed bread and wine 
by which to remember Christ in a special manner, "to 



APPENDIX. 317 

show forth His death, until He come?" If she did that, 
then there would be a possibility and a hope of the 
reunion of Christendom, a Christian unity of all be- 
lieving Christians, which is imperatively needed if the 
prevalent growth of irreligion and religious infidelity 
is to be checked, and Christ's prayer and wish might 
then be brought to pass — 

That they all may be one (John 17:21). 



INDEX 



Age, none so dark for introduction of a new doctrine, 251. 

Altars, why three in most churche's, 290. 

Apostles, received Christ under each form, 21. Puzzled as to 
which Christ to adore, 28. Where change opinion, 55. Mis- 
led, deceived, 55. Had sensuous views of religion, 123. 
Wrongly understood the prophecies, 126. Took Luke 22:29 
literally, 126. Creed of, necessary to believe, 153. Creed of, 
a complete summary of Catholic doctrine, 153. If believed in 
Real Presence have incorporated it in Creed, 154. Declared 
all the counsel of God, 154. All commands of Qirist to, 
descend upon us, 295. Not believe in invoking Blessed Vir- 
gin, 297. Where teach Christ's presence cease, 314, 

Author, once blind and thoughtless, 29. Nervous system in 
morbid condition, 33. Be Catholic to-day if been healed by 
priest, 47, 277. A deluded religio-maniac, 125. Not an ex- 
priest, 171. Ignorant and illiterate, 237. Born, bred a Cath- 
olic, 257. Had too much time to think, 257. Led out of the 
Church step by step, 259. The kind of Catholic once was, 
259. Left Church when expedient, 306. 

Baptism, necessary for infants a day old. 73. Text for. 73. Of 
infants matter of discipline, 78. Christ makes no distinction 
of sex or age for, 76, 80. Text should read, from a day old 
on up, 81. As much warrant of Scripture for frequent, as for 
Communion, 87. Text for, of universal application, 8i8. Can 
be received but once, 94. How apostates re-enter Church 
without re-, 95. Be then received also annually, 97. Received 
frequently, take water of life, freely, 109. Samaritan woman 
told of different way to receive, 109. 

Barabbas, people persuaded to ask for, by their superiors, 255. 

BENEnicTiON. Christ blesses in, 193. Doctrine falls with Real 
Presence, 218. Display of candles meaningless at, 218. 

Bishop, goes South for health, 275. 

Blasphemer, to be put to death, 250. 

Blessed Sacrament, laid on hands of laymen, 146. Christ has 
burning thirst be honored in, 179. Foster devotion to, by 
318 



INDEX 319 

devices, 180. Hours of adoration before, recorded on postal 
cards, 181. Jesus lonely in, 184. Magnetism about, that 
draws, 189. 
Blessed Virgin, worship of, essential part, v. Church exhorts 
to invoke, v. Beg, take possession of heart, 57. Takes pos- 
session of heart without a Eucharist, 230. Nothing against 
honoring, 263. Is only a creature, 263. Is infinitely less than 
God, 264. Most highly honored, 264. Over forty-six thou- 
sand petitions addressed to, every second, 267. Prayers in 
many languages simultaneously to, 268. Priest believes can 
get help from, as from his mother, 268. Made our Mother 
in person of St. John, 269. Has arm around us from birth, 
269. Likes to see Scapular worn, 269. Lets lineman fall to 
death, 270. Not protect against devil, 270. Not give temporal 
nor spiritual protection, 271. Comes to us at hour of death, 
271. Personally conducts soul to Paradise, 271. Not be at 
two places at same time, 271. Welcomes us home in Heaven, 
271. Prayers to, during Lent far greater than forty-six thou- 
sand, 272. Answers to prayers to, mere coincidences, 273. 
Returns thanks to, for temporal favor, 273. Infirmities yield 
without delay to name of, 274. Heals horse of blood poison- 
ing, 274. Has incomparable influence with God, 279, 282. 
Sees our prayers in mirror of Trinity, 281. Power to hear 
prayer not imply omnipresence, 281. Can accede to request 
three thousand miles away, 281. God reveals our prayers 
to, 281. Not save babes at birth. 282. Get God to change 
His will, 283. Have to be as omnipotent as God, 285. If 
world Catholic, be 460,000 petitions every second to, 285. 
Statue of, carried in procession, 288. Not see procession of 
May Devotions, 289. Altars for special worship of, 290. How 
worship of, originated, 290. Powers of, surpass those of Isis, 
290. Statues of, before which pray to, 291. Texts for wor- 
ship of, 291. Why at cross, 292. Words of Christ to, only 
a filial arrangement with St. John, 293, 296. Behold thy 
mother, not addressed to people at large, 295. Christ should 
then have said. Behold thy daughters, 296. Competitor for 
prerogatives of God, 297. Wants sinners to return to her, 

297. Called Mother of Mercy, 297. Never left one unaided, 

298. Error of doctrine sufficient to make one a non'-Catholic, 
299. 

Blood, daily washed in precious, 196. Of Christ be a stronger 
alkaloid on soul than wine, 209. Wash souls here in, of the 
Lamb, 215. 

Book, not author himself, 26. Not a conscious entity, 26, 2S, 
Not eat, to assimilate its contents, 27. Not be eaten by St. 
John, 69. Three ways to eat a, 136. Eaten in vision, 140. 
Of ex-priest read with doubt, 234. 

Bread, of sincerity not of natural form, 98. Living, which came 
down from Heaven, 101. Christ selected, because most com- 
mon, 105. Living, and living water the same thing, 117. 



320 INDEX 

Bread and Wine, no longer on altar, 3. Substances of, anni- 
hilated, 3. Changed into Lord's Body, 4. No, whatsoever 
remain, 4. Become again what appear to be, 36. Be thou 
persuaded are something else though taste remain, 43. 

Bread of Life, not of literal form, 99. The teachings of Christ, 
100. Gospel and life of Christ the, 139. Give powerful -dose 
of, 167. 

Cannibalism, Catholic Communion is, 47, 173. Be guilty of, 
must eat flesh in natural state, 48. To eyes of faith, 54, 56. 

Cardinals, if left Church influence few, 162. Italians mostly, 
163. Appointed by the Pope, 163. 

Catacombs, Mural decorations of, full of doctrine of Real Pres- 
ence, 239. 

Catholic — s, prostrate before Eucharist, 28. Leaves Church on 
death of wife, 45. Writers, not agree, 126. Eat their God, 
157. Writers on morals of, 159. Lived most corrupt lives, 
160. Now live lives high moral standard, 164, 165. Fear 
criticism of conduct by Protestants, 164. Not take troubles 
to Eucharistic God, 175. Not blessed much with world's 
goods, 176. Gladly spend hard-earned money for places for 
God, 176. Village invests total in cathedral would double 
home comforts, 185. Some not believe in Real Presence, 202. 
Buried from Church not beHeve all, 202. Deny single article 
cease be, 203. Must accept or reject all, 203. Crops and 
hogs of, suffer and die, 216. Most inveterate liars, 223. 
Contemptible hypocrites, 223. Go to Communion and theatre 
on Sunday, 224. Would now live lives as did at Reformation 
if depended on Sacraments to impel, 225. Pay to have sins 
pardoned, 231. Can commit any crime, 232. Must make 
restitution, 232. Must restore ill-gotten goods, 232. Two 
hundred and fifty million, in world, 265. Sin so much, go to 
Confession monthly, 270. Taught from childhood, only 
Church of Christ, 300. No right ask God to reveal truth, 
303. Not speculatively question his religion, 303. 

Celibacy, vow of, made by Clerics, 169. 

Chalice, of Lord, of devils, 151. 

Chewing Gum, not say eat it, 12, 14. 

Chicken, begins where egg ceases, 5. Which first, egg or, 15. 

Children, what becomes of, die without Communion, 72. Not 
given Communion before 12 years old, 72. Not have ever- 
lasting life without Communion, 74. Communion protects, 
from Satan, 78, Can sin at seven years, 78. Not discern body 
of Lord hence excluded from Communion, 79. No better 
after First Communion, 171. Fulfill duties of Christian life, 
226. Not receive Viaticum not helped by prayers of Church, 
309. May now go to Communion at about seven years, 309. 
Not properly prepared for First Communion in primitive 



INDEX 321 

days, 310. Must now be able to distinguish Eucharist from 
common bread, 310. 
Christ-God, present as long as species remain, 1. Remains till 
natural heat destroys species, 2. Beg, to abide all day, 2. 
Present about fifteen minutes, 2. What then becomes of, 3. 
Ego with mind in Eucharist, 4. Then not consumed, 6. Body 
of, glorified, 6. Declarations of, misleading, 7, 8. Not speak 
figuratively proven by repetitions, 7. Presence of, governed 
by digestion, 10. Assimilated to nothingness, 11. Why more 
than one reception of, if not consumed, 13. Ever eaten, not 
consumed, 14. Whole and entire under each form, 14. Re- 
mains till chased away by sin, 15. One present, sufficient, 
16. Veins full of blood, 20. Power to change bread not 
questioned, 20. Communicates Himself at Last Supper, 21. 
Word of Father, Wisdom, Truth, 25. Nearest at Communion, 
28. Dwells in hearts corporally, 29. Laymen puzzled which 
to adore at Communion, 29. In one's stomach, shocking 
thought, 30, 229. In heart, keeps eye on Eucharist in stom- 
ach, 31, 315. Dies mystical death in Mass, 36. Withdraws 
presence from elements not digested, 36. Mystically immo- 
lated and eaten, Z7. What causes, to withdraw from Host 
not digested, 39. Keeps eye on Host in stomach, 39. How 
withdraw from elements not received, 40. Have to re-tran- 
substantiate Himself, 40, 42. Sent disciples to preach and 
heal, 43. As easy to render Body present in Eucharist as 
heal woman, 43. Speaks by priest, 44. Suffered only a mys- 
tical crucifixion, 50. Liveth in me, meaning, 51, 60. What 
conception have of, in Communion, 51. Present with raiment, 
shoes, 52, Clothes of, how spiritualized, 52. Flesh of, be 
carnal to eyes of faith, 53. Spoke and forgave as man, not 
in Heaven, but on earth, 53. Not say. May know that Son 
of God, 53. Spoke as man in John 6 : 54, 54. Had in mind 

florified Body, 54. Present in Eucharist as glorified spirit, 
5. Speaking to Protestant before Judgment-seat, 55. Con- 
ception of, mystical one, 57. Received spiritually by faith, 
57, 58. Formed in us by continuous consciousness, 59. Not 
mean literal flesh, but spirit and life, 60. Rested on your 
tongue, 63. Enters our mouths, 63. Spoke as man when 
said. This is My body, 65. Crucifying again to themselves, 
68. Eat to taste if is sweet, 69. How have spoken had, used 
modern-day language, 70. Had in mind those at about adult 
age, 76. Adheres to sacred linens, 83. Soaked in water of 
washtub, 83. Uses third person in quotation on Baptism, 90. 
Person used by, makes no difference, 90. Addressed laymen 
in John 6, 95. I am the bread of life, 98. Spoke of Baptism 
to Samaritan woman, 103. No bread before, when spoke of 
bread of life, 106. Water before, when spoke of living water, 
106. Goes from stomach to heart without Eucharist, 111. 
Can go where Satan can without material channel, 112. Open 
door to, not mean open mouth, 114. Allowed Jews to de- 

21 



322 INDEX 

part, 122. Not use words to deceive greater number, 122. 
Came to abolish idolatry, 122, 124. Reign in hearts as spir- 
itual King, 122. Not explain prophecies to Jews, 122. Not 
set Jews aright before Pilate, 124. A deluded religio-maniac^ 
125. No longer speak in parables, 127. Discourses about 
betrayal at Last Supper, 128. Not say, Do this may have 
everlasting life, 128. One present, sufficient, 133. Lover of 
souls, 134. How we dwell in, 134. Body of, has qualities of 
spirit, 137. The door, vine, 139. Took whole body to Heaven, 
not suffer it to be consumed, 144. Would have contradicted 
Himself with regard to His flesh, 148. How escape censure 
if let Church fall into error, 152. Abiding in us lulls to 
sleep law of our flesh, 166. In Eucharist in person, 172. 
Dwells in Tabernacles as we in houses, 173. Delights to be 
with children of men, 173. Not leave us orphans, 173. Calls 
to us in Eucharist, 173. King of kings, 173. Listens in Taber- 
nacle to all we tell Him, 174. Answers child from Taber- 
nacle, 174. If visit, in Eucharist hear His voice, 174. Con- 
soHng to have, in Eucharist say. Thy sins are forgiven, 175. 
Wishes to be treated in Eucharist as a king in royal palace, 
179. If any man love, 179. Comes down from Heaven every 
day, 183. Left altar to enter glory, 183. Remains perpetually 
in churches, 183. Descends on altar at consecration, 183. How 
spend nights alone in churches, 184. Lonely in daytime in 
churches, 184. Carry, with us, 189. Inanimate in Eucharist, 
190. Inanimate, useless, 191, 206. Used persuasion, 195. 
Language in visions of Saints so different used on earth, 
200. Presence of, in species should preserve from staleness, 
209. Blood of, no longer be really separated from Body, 211. 
Be remembered without eating Him, 218. Must be mandu- 
cation of real Body of, 219. Put on by frequentation of 
Eucharistic table, 219. Baptized in, have put on, 220. Not 
have spirit of, not His, 222. Put on, means have His char- 
acter and spirit, 227. Not get drunk, was not envious, 227. 
Take possession of heart without Eucharist, 230. Able to 
preserve from sin, 236. An inanimate, cannot preserve Church 
from error, 236. Contemplate, as in Heaven, only give us 
hope, 237. Teachings of, in Scriptures, 237. Not teach as 
Scribes and Pharisees, 256. Why presence of, be affected 
by digestion, 313. Present on altars by way of transubstan- 
tiation, 313. Where teach presence cease when species cease, 
314. Carry in locket over heart, 315. What need of eating, if 
not assimilated, 315. Put on by hearing of faith, 316. 

Christian, live a good, for twenty-four hours, 194. 

Christian Science, why healers fail to heal, 133. Founder of, 
passed on, 248. Church now without infallible guide, 248. 
Author treated by twelve healers, left in worse physical con- 
dition, 260. Tried as a last hope, 261. Sick finally get well 
without, 274. 



INDEX 323 

Christian Unity, Church not give up one iota of dogma for 
sake of, 307. No possibility of, on basis of Papal Supremacy, 
307. Needed to check growth of irreligion, 317. 

Church — es, kingdom of God, 86. Fitting dwelHng places for 
God, 176. Tent of God of Eucharist, 183. With which 
Protestant, identify self leave to reader's choosing, 306. Any, 
not take Eucharist for bread of life nearer the truth than one 
that does, 306. 

Church, Catholic, not take expression of Christ in literal 
sense, 9. Not agree with Catholic professor, 32. Cannot cite 
Matt. 16 : 19, 11. Changeable, 82. Be death-blow claim of 
infallibility, 82. Not guided by Holy Spirit, in primitive days, 
84. Ceased teach doctrine previously held, 84, 93. Bewitched 
as Galatians were, 114. Of senseless, 114. Alone claims 
prerogative of infallibility, 127. Ministers of, speak as having 
authority, 127. Faithful not question veracity of, 127. De- 
parted from teachings of Apostles, 153. Has forgotten Gal. 
1 : 8, 180. What the, promulgates is what Apostles preached, 

182. Contradictory in teaching as to where God may be, 

183. Not the only true, of Christ, 206. Voice of, voice of 
God, 219. Not the, of St. Paul's day, 221, 222. Gives safe 
guidance, 225. H erred then Christ lied, and be to deny 
Divinity of Christ, 234. How become corrupt with abiding 
presence of Christ, 235. Looks to Eucharist for her Christ, 
237. With wisdom of ages knows more than you, 248. Pre- 
sumptuous put one's ignorance against wisdom of Church, 
248. Not change one iota in anything, 248. If failed in one 
point how be certainty in other doctrines, 257. Would have 
us beware of curious scrutiny, 258. Forbids liberty of thought, 
258. Every one obliged to become member of, 300. Must 
submit to her authority, 300. Author not ask God if, was 
the true, 301. Lord laid on all docility to teachings of, 303. 
God not condemn to hell not believe on authority of, what 
intellect prevents from believing, 306. Never come to terms 
with other religions, 307. Will not give up one iota of dogma 
for sake of reunion, 307. Guided by Sacred Congregations 
of fallible men, 311. Mainly a human organization, 312. 
Changes about every time a new Sacred Congregation comes 
into power, 312. Not agree with Christ and Apostles, 315. 

Church, Jewish, fallen down, 121. Covenants of, for ever, 121. 
Fell into idolatry, 124. Led into error, 254. Teaching body 
of, infallible, 255. If could preach error God responsible, 255. 

Clerics (See also Priests), receive three or six Christs on 
Christmas, 14, 17. Abuses among, denounced, 160. Quite 
a few sick, 186. 

Clocks, in Heaven, 283. 

Communion, listen to Christ in, 28. Not be received if is 
danger of vomiting, 30. Spitting be avoided for half an hour 
after receiving, 31. Feed upon blessed body of Jesus in. 



324 INDEX- 

34. Blood of God flows in veins after, 34. No bread and 
wine received in, 41. Holy of Holies, 48. True flesh re- 
ceived in, 48. Receive in, same Christ born of Virgin Mary, 
51. Touchest and eatest Christ in, 52. Remain in devotion 
fifteen minutes after, 62. God forms with us one body in, 63. 
Necessary for infants, 74. For all without regard to age or 
sex, n. Never be saved without, 78, 131. Text should read, 
from twelve years old on up, 81. No warrant for more than 
once receive, 94. John 6 : 54 warrants annual, 96. Sows in 
body seeds of immortality, 132. Given in hands of laymen 
at one time, 146. Preserves from mortal sin, 158. Changes 
degraded into angels of chastity, 158. Can persevere on way 
of commandments with, 159. Changes man into same sub- 
stance as God, 159. Christ transforms us into Himself in, 
160. Fruits of, not depend on own efforts, 167. Gives 
strength to fight Christ's battles, 167. Remedy against con- 
cupiscence, 167. Represses the passions, 167. Meaning of 
spiritual, 181. Prevents and cures sickness, 185. Be given 
by God whatever ask for in, 186. Unworthy, cause of sick- 
ness, 187. At three special periods, 188. Enjoined by law 
once a year, 188. Gives foretaste of heavenly delights, 188. 
The oftener received the more hungered for, 188. No thrill 
felt at, 189, 224. Yearly, be without salvation if killed forty- 
eight hours after, 194. Ask for daily, in Lord's Prayer, 196. 
Go to, as often as obedience permits, 197. Go when have 
craving for, 198. Go daily because sin daily, 199. Daily, 
implies flesh of God not imperishable, 200. Only go to, when 
have chased Christ away by sin, 201. Wine creates abnormal 
appetite for liquor, 209. Christ's soul compenetrates our soul 
in, 210. Antidote against relapse into sin, 226. Fast from 
midnight of day go to, 228. Not go to, if inadvertently take 
a crumb, 228. Only a mystical eating, 314. 

Confession, restrains from sin more than all else, 171. Keeps 
from doing things otherwise would do, 171. Why did not 
prevent corruption of morals, 172. Greatest bulwark against 
wickedness, 172. No need then of going to, to a priest, 172. 

Confessor, judge in case how often go to Communion, 196. 
With permission of, go to Jesus as often as possible, 198. 
No longer has corner on Communion, 199. Father, I just 
chased Christ away by sin, 201. 

Confirmation, administered to infants in third century, 93. Now 
not given till after First Communion, 93. Effects of, 168. 

Council — s, decrees of, be ratified by Pope, 240. Jewish Church 
held Grand, 245. Decisions of, consolatory to heart, 246. 
General, defined Real Presence, 254. 

Council of Trent, great reforming tribunal, 159, Would have 
Eucharist received for daily faults, 199. Anathema who de- 
nies Real Presence, 245. 

Creed, why write a long, 155. 



INDEX 325 

Daniel, proved dragon not god, 157. . 

Death, kind Christ dies no more, 36. Of actor on stage mys- 
tical, 37. Mystical, of Christ a sham, 37, 314. 

Devil, instigator of all sin, 270. Put doubts into author's mind, 
270. Does God let, answer our prayers, 303. 

Digestive Organs, in abnormal condition, 36, 39. Christ's pres- 
ence governed by, 40, 42. 

Discipline, Communion of infants a matter of, 78. Laxity of, 
invaded sanctuary, 160. 

Discipline of the Secret, forbade Real Presence be openly 
taught, 154. 

Doctrine — s, may be developed, but not altered, 84. That fall 
with Real Presence, 211. Pestiferous, 248. True because of 
universal belief, 250. To introduce a new, requires more 
ingenuity, 251. Of final penitence, 252. Conviction are errors 
not come without mental perturbation, 300. 

Drink Ye All of It, limited to Clerics, 295. Not limited to 
Apostles by express words, 295. 

Easter, obligation has latitude of three months, 193. All obliged 
put on Christ at, 223. Scene of sin renewed two weeks after, 
223. 

Eat, the book means diligent attention, 69. Christ means as- 
similate with mind His spirit and life, 69, 141. To believe 
is to, Christ, 117. 

Egg, a better analogy, 4. Changed into chicken, 4. Shell no 
longer veil of chicken, 207. 

Ego — s, of man and woman not merge into one, 17. Of Christ 
in Eucharist a conscious entity, 112. Indivisible without being 
destroyed, 149. 

Eucharist, Host, body and blood of Christ, iv. Central dogma 
of Church, iv. Focus of Divine love, iv. Keystone of wor- 
ship, iv. Very soul of Church, v. Magnet that draws Lord, 
6, 31. For frequent nourishment of soul, 13. Only reflection 
of God, 22. God of concrete reality, 23. Christ with separate 
ego in, 24. God present with human nature in, 25. A con- 
scious entity, 26. Living God, 30, 176. Washed down throat 
with water, 30. Not keep in mouth till dissolved, 31. Miracle 
surpassing all others, 46. Flesh of your flesh, 47. Same 
body in which Jesus suffered, 48. Same blood that trickled 
from cross, 50. Christ as present in, as of old, 52. Both a 
sacrament and sacrifice, 95. Fountain of living waters, 103. 
Called Bread of Life because made of bread, 104. Of tre- 
mendous importance, 127. Promised in John 6, 128. Not a 
perishable gift, 131. Compared with manna, 131. Sows in 
body seeds of immortality, 132. Not be touched except with 
mouth, 147. Of pagan origin, 156. Adored as God in Mass, 
157. Proofs is not Supernatural, 158, 165, 171, 185, 187, 205, 



326 INDEX 

209, 226. Only a piece of blessed bread, 161. Secures for us 
abiding presence of Christ, 173. Light kept burning before, 
184. To receive, is to co-operate with, 204. Renewed every 
eight or ten days, 206. Becomes stale, 206. World be empty 
without, 237. Buried with dead, 239. Veneration of, in- 
creased in time, 311. Christ perfect in, as in Heaven, 313. 
Only as a mirror, reflecting Christ, 314. Carry in locket over 
heart, 313. Holds Christ within foot of a certain place, 315. 

EucHARiSTic Propaganda, begun, 181. 

Europe, religion Catholic time Luther was born, 161. 

Ex- Priest, tells bare- faced lies in his book, 232. Book of, 
abounds with unsavory rot, 233. 

Faith, exercise of, a mental act, 60. Catholic, sound but how 
dead, 224. Temporal good not obtained without renouncing, 
261. 

Father — s, Jewish, who died in desert, dead for ever, 130. 
Church, were no more infallible than Leo XHL, 239, 240. 
Church, may have become bewitched, 242. St. Paul an early 
Church, 243. Christ said, Call none on earth your, 310, 

Flesh, bought in shambles, 8, 53. Of Son of Man, how eaten 
if not consumed, 38. Of Lord in Communion same as was 
formed from His mother, 47. Of Christ be carnal to eyes 
of faith, 53, 56. Eat, in figurative sense do some injury, 136. 
Eat, has three meanings, 136. Eat My, not taken in literal 
sense after all, 137. Profiteth nothing, 143. Of Columbus 
profiteth us, 148. Who are in the, not please God, 149. Of 
Jesus keeps down rebellion of our flesh, 166. Of God not 
substantial, 200. 

Flesh and Blood, carnal as water in Baptism, 7. How comply 
with precept if are no, of Christ, 68. 

First Friday, communicate on, of each month, 197. More 
applicable on, than on other days, 200. Not die without final 
penitence if communicate on, of nine consecutive months, 252. 

Food, natural, a temporary substance, 13. 

Galatians, bewitched, 242. 

Galileo, forced Pope send affair before Inquisition, 246. Pope 
condemns, do penance, 251. 

God, changes food into His body, 4. Has no wasting tissues, 5. 
Eating Himself, 21. But one, illustrated by sieve, 22. Not 
be compressed into wafer, 23, 26. Then be circumscribed, 26. 
As universal as gravitation, 26. Goes into stomach, 30. Car- 
ried in handbag, 30. Keeps eye on Eucharist in stomach, 31. 
In stomach, shocking thought, 32. If in heart, vomiting make 
no difference, 32. Everywhere wholly present, 33. Not made 
by hands, 33. What mutilates, in Communion, 34. Blood of, 
flows in our veins, 34. Cannot make another, like Himself, 



INDEX 327 

46. Abideth in us if we lave one another, 59. In us till 
chased away by sin, 59. Word, substituted for "it," 61. Do 
not chew, 62. If not go into stomach not receive Sacrament, 
62. Children eat, for first time, 63. Divided asunder, 149. 
Our food, 158. Dwelleth not in houses. 177. Not pay in 
niggardly way, 186. If not will of, get well why use medi- 
cine, 187. Placed in man's breast craving for union, 189. 
Flesh of, as eternal as I AM, 201. Concrete reaHty in one's 
stomach, 230. Cannot create being equal to Himself, 267. 
Not will of, be cured, 279. Not give error when ask for 
truth, 302. Will reveal to you if otherwise minded, 304. Not 
require believe by faith what intellect contradicts, 305. 

Grace, life of, conferred by Baptism, 86; by Communion, 87. 
Inner, not derived from Communion that preserves from sin, 
172. Priceless treasure, 223. 

Graft, common abuse among churchmen in Luther's time, 159. 

Hail Mary, prayer of ten seconds, 265. 

Heart — s, make fitting dwelling places for God, 177. Not reached 

spiritually through mouth, 316. Evil thoughts of, not driven 

out through stomach, 316. 
Heathenish Lives, for 364 days of year live well-nigh, 193, 228. 
Hell, fathers in desert who ate manna in, 130. Church not teach 

can be prayed out of, 212. Gates of, not prevail, meaning, 

235. 
High Priest — s, were infallible, 231. Scribes follow lead of, 

247. When convert, believe as you do, 247. 
Holy Water, employed in solemn services, 168. Banishes 

demons, 168. Purifies everything it touches, 168, 253. How 

made, 253. 

Ignorant and Illiterate, Peter and John, 238. Thou art, dost 
teach the Pope, 238. Not always wrong, 238. 

Immense Assemblage, best qualified judge, 245. May be in 
error, 246. Not make an error a truth, 247. Not make one 
man infallible, 247. 

Indulgence — s, two new, 181, 217. Bishop granted, 205. Ple- 
nary, exempts sinner from Purgatory, 214. Given on death- 
bed-, 214. Doctrine of, falls with Real Presence, 217. Not 
a license to sin, 217. Remits temporal punishment, 218. 
Every new, makes means of salvation more numerous, 312. 

Infant — s, given Communion in primitive days, 79, 308. En- 
dowed with faith for reception of Baptism, 80. Communion 
as indispensable for, as Baptism, 82, 88. Communion im- 
parted additional graces to, 92. Popes who declared Com- 
munion necessary for, 92. Given Confirmation in third cen- 
tury, 93. Souls of, in hell if not receive Communion, 131. 



328 INDEX 

Frequently given Communion once, 308. Chase Christ away 
by sin, 312. 

Intellect, give internal assent of, iv, 299. Arms of, 10, 265. 

Not throw under feet of faith, 18. When revolted, 262. 

Could no longer give internal assent of, 305. 
Interpretation, who knows more of proper, 241. Peter and 

John who knoweth not the law, 241. 
Is, stands for signifies, 18, 19. Used as in this is Mary Jones, 20. 

Jews, object to doctrine as repugnant, 7, 122. Expression re- 
volting to, shown by texts, 8. Understood were to eat flesh 
indeed, 8. Misled by repetition, 35, 48, 54. Had sensuous 
views of religion, 68, Believed Messiah be great temporal 
prince, 80, 250. Took sayings of Christ literally as did 
prophecies, 115, 120. Said, Lord give us always this bread, 
116. In hell who ate manna, 131. As much people of God 
as Catholics are, 153. Deceived by obeying their Church, 
255. God cause of their error, 255. 

John 6, be interpreted in spiritual sense, 64. How should read 
according to interpretation of the Church, 81. Refers to life 
of grace, 86. If not comply with, not have everlasting life, 
89. As universal of application as John 3 : 5, 89. Binds under 
sin to annual Communion, 97. Treatise on Real Presence, 
120. Taken in literal sense involve doctrine of immortality, 
133. If admit spiritual sense of, then Church is wrong, 137. 

Key, unravels mystery, 243. 

Kingdom, of God not mean Church, 86. Not mean to Jews 
their Church, 121. What, is meant by Luke 22 : 29, 126. 

Law — s, works of, bodily operations, 114. When must go to 
the Sacraments, 187. Of Church contradicts her claims, 192. 
Of attending Mass on Sundays, 192. Of yearly Communion 
to prevent neglect means of salvation, 193. Contrary to free 
will, 195. Christ not subject to, of acidity, decay, 208. None 
in days of St. Paul go to Communion, 221. Christ gave 
complete system of, 221. 

Lent, time of mortification, 164. Churches well filled in, 223. 

Lie, difference between a, and an untruth, 233. 

Lincoln, be called blessed by colored people, 289. Carry statue 
of, in church be idolatry, 289. 

Lord's Supper, a memorial, 66. How be guilty partake un- 
worthily, 67. Hypocrites bring judgment to themselves at, 68. 
Simply shows death of Lord, 94. Burden of discourse at 
institution of, 106. At institution of, Christ not say, _This^ is 
the flesh I promised, 128. Not for obtaining everlasting life» 
128. 

Love, cannot bear separation, 189. 



INDEX 3» 

Luther, threw open monasteries, 159. Gave leave to monks to 
marry, 159. 

Man, size of person not constitute a, 80. Has craving for union 
with God, 189. Not need law to go see attractive young 
woman, 192. Some who look to a, for religious guidance, 
247. 

Manna, who ate, are dead, 130, 131. A perishable gift, perish- 
able who ate, 131. 

Mass — es, then a sham, 38, 211. No semblance to Lord's Sup- 
per, 38, 106. Not cease be agreeable to God if offered by 
wicked priest, 45. Not save a wife from death, 45. Laymen 
cannot offer up, 95. Bishop who never celebrated, 160. Not 
Supernatural, 161, 205. Obtains for us temporal blessings, 
169. Neglect of Sunday, saddening sign, 192, 193. Not al- 
lowed be present at, 205. Real Presence indispensable to, 
211. Stipends for, for special intentions, 211. The different 
kinds of, 211, Said for souls in Purgatory, 212. Our chief 
action on Purgatory, 213. Many fly from Purgatory to Para- 
dise at every, 213. Shortens pains of Purgatory, 213, Said 
for departed, no matter how long dead, 215. For restoration 
to health, 216. Not help ailing Clerics, 216. For blessings 
on fruits of earth, 216. At marriages, 216. 

May Devotions, in honor of Blessed Virgin, 288. 

Meat, eternal reward, 99. If is Eucharist, why received fre- 
quently, 100. Christ's Body as, for Apostles, 122. Kind 
Christ had to eat, 123. 

Medal — s, of Lady of Victory heals horse of blood poisoning, 
275. Of Saint put into drinking water cures men and cattle, 
275. Four tied to string around neck, 277. 

Merits of Christ, as free as air, appropriated through faith, 218. 

Messiah, what was foretold of, 121. 

Metaphorical, language of John 4, 107. Christ passed from, to 
literal speech, 119. Eat flesh, language, 136. All four texts, 
139. 

Mind— s, assimilating organ of soul, 71, 72, 110. Spiritual ac- 
tivities come by a mental act, 101. Operations of Spirit are 
through, 110. Evil thoughts enter through, 111. Idle, devil's 
workshop, 111. Spirit and life put on through, 229. Great, 
of Church, 237. Great, of Jewish Church, 238. Persons of 
great, not always right, 238. 

Morals, increasing depravity of, 159. Corruption of, in six- 
teenth century, 160. 

Multiplication, of presence not Person of Christ, 24. Means 
separate egos, minds, 24. 

Newspapers, age fed on, 141. 

NicoDEMUS, said. How can these things be done, 116, 117. 



330 INDEX 

Nocturnal Adoration, society formed, 180. 
NovENAs, not help, 177, 278. Fail to cure, later cured by spe- 
cialist, 279. 
Now You Do, and now you do not, 138, 148. 

Opinion, own single, against immense assemblage, 245. Great 
sin, criminal pride to do so, 245. 

Pagans, feed their god, 157. 

Pantheistic Expression, 48, 49. 

Penances, great, imposed in earliest ages, 205. Christ on earth 
not impose, 206. Priest imposes, as Jesus would, 206. 

Perpetual Adoration, cost of candles, $2,555 yearly, 178. Chapel 
struck by lightning, 178. Ninety nims in one society of, 179. 
Is besides what Apostles preached, 180. 

Persons, used by Christ, 90. 

Pope — s, had in mind those at about adult age, 75. Says Christ 
put on by frequentation of Eucharistic table, Id, 219. Opposed 
to abolition of infant Communion, 92. Loss of office a 
calamity, 125. Why mostly Italians, 162. Not chosen by 
God? 163. Rendered decision on frequent Communion, 196. 
Infallibility of, falls with Real Presence, 219. When speaks 
is a Thus saith the Lord, 219. Leo XIII. not infallible, 227, 
229. Pius X., of Eucharist, 228. Meaning of InfallibiHty 
of, •230. Not err when teach faith, 230. Expounder of divine 
law, 231. Cannot sin, 231. Not impeccable, 232. Confesses 
every week, 232. Has Host buried with him, 239. One or 
the other, not infallible, 240. When convert, believe as you 
do, 247. Condemned excessive liberty of thought, 258. Called 
Most Holy Lord, 310. 

Pray — er — ing, of Hail Mary, 265. Have in mind to whom^ 

284. Zigzag way of, 284. That must be said with lips, 284. 
Speak not much when, 285. Outpourings of feelings of heart, 

285. Not measured by set words, 286. Counted, performance 
only of lips and fingers, 286. For truth, 301. 

President, cannot listen to forty-six thousand telephone calls 
simultaneously, 267. 

Prevail, to obtain, destroy, 237. 

Priest — s, makes a God out of piece of bread, 3. Why not 
heal the sick, 43. Is another Christ, 43. Takes bread in 
hand at consecration, 44. Given all power, 47. Sees infant 
Jesus in Host, 56. Plays cards on Sunday, 164. Falls in 
love with housekeeper, illustration, 166. Women and wine 
at bottom of deplorable downfalls of, 170. Apostate, slaves 
of sensuality, 170. Only bound say Mass when honorary is 
paid, 211. Meet with unforeseen accidents, 270. Shot to 
death in church, 270. Goes to Colorado for benefit of health. 



INDEX 331 

dies at forty-one, 276. Tells one to say, My God, I believe, 
304, 305. 

Private Judgment, denied use of, 246. Apostles erred in, know- 
eth not the law, 246. 

Prophecies, calculated to deceive the Jews, 121. Meant a spir- 
itual king and kingdom, 122. 

Protestants, live lives high moral standard, 164, 226. Fulfill 
duties of Christian life, 225. 

Purgatory, fire of, garden of pleasure, 212. Suffer in, for sins 
forgiven, 212. Two voices from, 213. About every Catholic 
will go to, 214. Perfect Pope in, 214. Holy, generous man 
not escape, 215. Wash robes in, instead of in Blood of Lamb, 
215. 

Real Presence, all dogmas come to focus in, iv. Center of 
Catholic ritual, v. Miracle of -love, 44. How be guilty eat 
unworthily if no, 67. Not spoken of in this verse, 118. Im- 
plied in Apostles' Creed, 155. Hence pomp, grandeur of 
liturgical rites, 177. Astonishing surprise to those get eyes 
opened tO' error of, 182. Makes church house of God, 184. 
Idolatry of, pitifully awful, 184. Remains as long as forms 
remain, 207. Discovery of error of, sufficient for leaving 
Church, 210. Three-fourths of world believes in, 250. What 
has ignorance to gain by, 251. One gain of, grounds for 
asking stipends for Masses, 251. Gives unction to sacerdotal 
theory, 252. If, not true whole world led into error, 254. 
Not stand deep thinking, 258. 

Reason, against all, believers wrong for sixteen centuries, 243. 
Against all, Jews wrong as to meaning of prophecies, 244. 

Reformer, suffered tragic end, 277. 

Religion, not sound reason remain in certain, once see is not 
true, 257. 

Resurrection, doctrine of, mocked in days of Apostles, 155. 

Retransubstantiation, who performs miracle of, 40, 207. 

Revelation, complete at beginning of Church, 182. All, from 
God, 197. Like head officers of certain churches receive, 200. 
Of Saints only bases of many teachings of Church, 235. Lord 
made to Margaret Mary, 252. Private, not given to all 
demand them, 303. God told us not grant private, 303. 
Saints in Middle Ages had private, 304. 

Rosary, prayer contains fifty-three Hail Marys, 266. Recite 
daily in all churches, 272. Perpetual, said day and night, 272. 
A chain-like beaded article, 286. 

Sacramental Presence, of Christ makes soul strong in virtue, 

158. 
Sacramentals, not Supernatural, 161. Impart subordinate 

graces, 165. Filled with undefinable power, 165. 



332 INDEX 

Sacraments, efficacy not depend on worthiness of minister, 45» 
Fountain of living waters, 102. Not Supernatural, 161. Ef- 
fect inward sanctification, 165. Only make-believes, 171. 

Sacred Congregation, settles how frequently may go to Com- 
munion, 197. New decree of, when children may make their 
First Communion, 308. 

Sacred Heart, revelation, 197. Is besides what Apostles preached, 
198. Thanks returned to, for favors, 273. 

Sacred Vessels, sin for laymen to touch, 147, 312. 

Sacred Vestments, prayer said when putting on, 169. Richness 
of, 177. 

Sacrifice, oblation of a victim, 38. 

Sacristy, part of church, Lord may be there, adhering to linens, 
83. 

Saint-;-s, Peter denies Lord, 165. Paul not teach Galatians 
Christ put on by Communion, 220. Ignatius disciple of John, 
243. Not invoked fewer times than Blessed Virgin, 265. Not 
understand prayers in different languages said simultaneously, 

268. God has a thousand ways make our needs known to, 
281. Power to hear prayer not imply omnipresence, 281. 
Have to be as omnipotent as God, 285. Pray to a certain, 
for a certain thing, 287. Invocation of, how originated, 291. 
John at cross by special providence, 292. Peter not to be 
Supreme Pastor, 294. Paul repeatedly asks prayers of his 
disciples, 297. 

Scapular, badge of special protection, 168, 269. Received from 
Blessed Virgin, 269. Blessed Virgin likes to see us wear, 

269. Worn by all good Catholics, 270. 

Scribes and Pharisees, great minds of Jewish Church, 238. 
Were infallible, 254. Not believe in Christ, say people se- 
duced who do, 255. Blind, leaders of blind, 256. Christ 
not teach as, 256. 

Sexual Commerce, unmarried Catholics and Protestants live 
without, 171. 

Shrine — s, reported cures at, not true, 278. Not cured at, of 
St. Anne, 278. More than one, in America, 287. 

Simony, a plague to the Church, 159. 

Sister — s, before Eucharist made unconscious by lightning, 178. 
Quite a few sick, 186. Dies, spent nine years in chair, 276. 
Suffered something most terribly at death, 276. 

Son of David, be great temporal prince, 250. 

Soul, of communicant more substantial than God, 13. Needs 
frequent nourishment, 13. Reached and fed through mind, 
71, 98, 110. 

Specialist, cures patient after Novenas fail, 279. 

Spirit, operations of, are through mind, 110. Hath not flesh. 



INDEX 333 

137. That quickeneth, 145, 206. Received by hearing of faith, 

220. Hearest His voice, 242. Fruits of, are charity, joy, 242. 

Do things of, reap everlasting life, 242. 
Spirit and Life, not put on by eating flesh of one, 141. Of 

Saint how put on, 69, 70. Put on through mind and will, 229. 
Spirit of Truth, Paraclete of every believer, 125, 249. Reveals 

only to institution with wisdom and learning, 249. When 

change in guiding, 311. 
Substance, and accidents, meaning, 208. 
Suicide, heinous crime, buried from Church, 84. 
Supreme Court, renders infallible decisions, 231. 

Tabernacle, no voice comes from, 30, 176. Christ always in, 
174. Child raps for Jesus at, 174. Never be too richly 
adorned, 176. Exterior be decorated, befitting the King, 177. 
Christ's place of rest till eternity, 183. Throne of grace, 184. 

Taste, and see Lord is sweet, 189. 

Thinker, given by God, 257. Why given a, if should not think, 8. 

Thirst, do such, 194. Come to Me and drink if, 195. 

This is My Body, impressed sacredness upon memorial, 64. Not 
take in same sense as in this is Mary Jones, 64. Christ spoke 
as man when said, 65. 

Thought, Church forbids liberty of, 258. Can follow but one 
train of, at a given time, 264. Eyes be opened if exercised 
liberty of, 280. 

Tran substantiation, has analogy in nature, 4. Changes sub- 
stance into pre-existing body, 6. Foreshadowed, 24. Christ 
present on altar by way of, 313. Word, a misnomer process 
be called Displacement, 314. 

Truth, knowledge of, not prerogative of those only with wisdom 
and learning, 249. Not the, if not bear free thinking, 258. 
Wanted to know the, 301. Ask, seek for the, 302. Should 
come through the understanding, 304. Asked God to reveal 
the, 304. 

Understanding, spiritual things should appeal to, 18. Lord give 
thee, in all things, 74, 302. Convictions of truth came to 
author through the, 304. 

Universal, text of, application, 88. Doctrine true because, be- 
lief, 250. 

Verbiage, some admire, 27. Only theological, 315. 
Vespers, services poorly attended, 193. End usually with Bene- 
diction, 193. 

Washington, George, remember at banquet without eating him, 
129, 152, 218. 



334 INDEX 

Watch, stolen from house, 273. Recovered, a temporal favor, 
274. 

Water, draw out of wells of salvation, 102. More a daily 
necessity than bread, 105. Not more natural for, to extin- 
guish fire than Body of Christ appease heat of concupiscence, 
167. Forced to drink, not have free will, 195. 

Water, Living, means Baptism, 103. Given thee if hadst asked 
for, 104. Drink, as from Jacob's well, 107. Drink, if not 
want to thirst again, 109. From whence hast Thou, 116. And 
living bread the same thing, 117. Take freely, 197. 

Why, an awkward monosyllable, 292, 294. 

Will, not impelled by Communion, 204. Impels to practice 
virtue, 204. 

Wine, at bottom of downfalls, 170, 230. 

Wisdom, eat, yet hunger, 27, 101. In multitude of counsel, 247. 
Ask God for, 302. 

Woman, under certain age not be housekeeper for priest, 170. 
Revelation made to a, 182, Not permitted to teach in Church, 
182, 198. 

Women, lose babes at birth, 282. Catholic, not all married or in 
cloisters, 287. 

Word — s, human, affords illustration, 25. Made flesh, enters 
soul, 25. Not speaker entire, 26. Cuts to the quick, 72. 
Found, did eat, 101. Sweet to palate, 102. Spiritual mean- 
ing of, slow unfoldment, 123. Summing up, of sermons 
impress, 224. Behold thy mother, and drink ye all of it, 294. 
Behold thy mother, not addressed to people at large, 295. 
Woman, behold thy daughters, 296. Behold thy son, of tem- 
porary nature, 296. 

Wrath of God, visited upon apostate Catholics, 277. 

Wretched Outcasts, seek refuge in Protestantism, 261. 



JUN 22 191 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



8l( 



One copy del. to Cat. Div. 



JUN 22 ^911 




■■-■ 'V^i <^',m:i 



